|
|
|
Court sides with NY Times in anthrax libel case
Headline Court News |
2008/12/14 09:04
|
| The Supreme Court has rejected a plea by former Army scientist Steven J. Hatfill to revive his libel lawsuit against The New York Times over columns falsely implicating him in the deadly 2001 anthrax attacks.pThe justices did not comment Monday in turning down Hatfill's appeal of a unanimous ruling by the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, based in Richmond, Va. A three-judge panel affirmed a lower court's dismissal of the libel claims on the grounds that Hatfill is a public figure and failed to prove that columns written by Nicholas Kristof were malicious./ppCircumstantial evidence led the FBI to suspect Hatfill was involved in the anthrax attacks that killed five people and sickened 17 just weeks after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. Then-Attorney General John Ashcroft publicly identified Hatfill, who worked at the Army's infectious diseases laboratory at Ft. Detrick, Md., from 1997 to 1999, as a person of interest in the investigation./ppIn June, the Justice Department agreed to pay Hatfill $5.8 million to settle a lawsuit claiming officials violated his privacy rights by speaking with reporters about the case./ppNo one has been charged in the attacks, although the government now believes another Army scientist, Bruce Ivins, was responsible. Ivins killed himself in July./p |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ex-Attorney Loses Bid to Access Legislator's Records
Headline Court News |
2008/10/01 07:18
|
The Ohio Supreme Court denied a retired lawyer's request for access toa state legislator's e-mails, text messages and correspondence.
nbsp; nbsp; JeffreyGlasgow sought a writ of mandamus for access to the correspondence ofRep. Shannon Jones, because he was concerned about the effects of OhioHouse Bill 151 on his public-employee pension.
nbsp; nbsp; The bill would require public investors to divest holdings in companies that do certain business in Iran or Sudan.
nbsp; nbsp; The state Supreme Court ruled that Glasgow's request was overly broad.
nbsp; nbsp; Glasgow'smerit brief focused on e-mails and text messages. Therefore, thejustices disqualified correspondence. Text messages were alsodisqualified because they do not document work-related matters.
nbsp; nbsp; SinceJones has already delivered the 26 e-mail messages pertaining to HouseBill 151, the justices ruled that Glasgow's request is moot. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Homeowner Get 122K in Hidden Cash, Court Says
Headline Court News |
2008/09/30 07:10
|
The $122,000 cash that an electrician found hidden in a ceiling belongs to the woman who bought the home, not the seller's estate, the Oregon Court of Appeals ruled.
Helen Sollars bought a home from the estate of Helene Valoff in Milwaukie, Ore. An electrician found the money more than a year after the purchase.
The trial court ruled that the city should release the disputed money to the estate, because the real estate transfer was not intended to include the money.
Judge Ortega disagreed, citing the language the estate was required to remove personal property and leave other items. So, when the estate left Sollars the refrigerator, stove, and window coverings, it also left her the money.
Nothing in the requirement that the estate remove all personal property provides any exception based on the parties' knowledge of such property, Ortega wrote. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Court Clears Microsoft in $1.5 Billion Patent Action by Lucent
Headline Court News |
2008/09/29 07:16
|
Microsoft Corp. does not have to pay $1.53 billion in damages awarded to Lucent Technologies in a dispute over two patents for compressing digital music into MP3 format, the Federal Circuit ruled. The court affirmed U.S. District Judge Rudi Brewster's decision to throw out a jury's verdict against the world's largest software maker.
In February 2007 the San Diego jury ruled that Microsoft's Windows Media Player infringed on Lucent's patents. Brewster tossed the verdict in August 2007, finding that the jury had improperly used the value of the entire computer as the royalty base.
The Federal Circuit held that Microsoft had not infringed one of the two patents, and that Lucent lacked standing to sue Microsoft over the second patent. |
|
|
|
|
|
Legal News RSS Feed
