|
|
|
U.S. court orders Black to prison on Monday
Headline Topics |
2008/02/28 13:47
|
pMedia mogul Conrad Black has lost his bid to be freed on bond and will have to report to a Florida prison on Monday./ppA U.S. federal appeals court in Chicago on Thursday ruled that Black must go to jail while his appeal of his fraud and obstruction of justice convictions moves through the court system.
/ppThe Montreal-born Black was convicted July 13 of obstructing justice and defrauding shareholders of his former newspaper company, Hollinger International Inc. He was sentenced to 6½ years in prison and ordered to start serving his time on March 3./ppThe U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals on Thursday did, however, agree to free Black's two co-defendants on bond while they appeal their own fraud sentences./ppFormer Hollinger executive John Boultbee was sentenced to 27 months in jail while his colleague Peter Atkinson received a 24-month jail sentence./ppIn explaining the decision not to free Black, the three appeal court judges who ruled on Black's case noted that he was convicted of one offence that the other Hollinger executives were not — the obstruction of justice./p |
|
|
|
|
|
|
US appeals court rejects California ship emission rules
Headline Topics |
2008/02/27 11:24
|
| California must obtain approval from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency before enforcing new rules to require ships to burn cleaner diesel fuel as they enter and dock at the state's ports, a federal appeals court ruled on Wednesday.span id=midArticle_1/spanpThe California Air Resources Board had sought to implement stricter air pollution controls within 24 miles of the state's coastline. The rules would require ships to use fuel in their auxiliary engines that emits lower levels of sulphur oxide, nitrogen oxide and particulate matter./pspan id=midArticle_2/spanpBut the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeal reinstated a lower court's injunction barring the state from enforcing its Marine Vessel Rules, finding that the Clean Air Act preempts them./p |
|
|
|
|
|
|
US court rules for Medtronic, bars some state suits
Headline Topics |
2008/02/20 13:46
|
| pThe U.S. Supreme Court handed a victory to Medtronic Inc on Wednesday, ruling that patients cannot sue medical-device manufacturers in state court over harm from a device that has approval from federal regulators./ppBy an 8-1 vote, the court ruled a 1976 law creating federal safety oversight for medical devices bars state-law claims challenging safety or effectiveness of devices that have won premarket approval from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration./ppThe decision was the Supreme Court's first ruling on the legal effect of the FDA's approval of a medical device on liability lawsuits, Medtronic said./ppThe ruling could benefit other device makers, who have argued that the FDA's judgment that a product is safe and effective should protect companies from being sued for liability in state court./ppThe Medtronic case involved a New York man who was injured in 1996 when a doctor inflated a balloon catheter during an artery-clearing procedure./ppMedtronic has said the doctor in the case used the catheter contrary to labeling instructions and in a patient for whom it was not recommended. The company no longer makes that specific catheter./ppA federal trial court in Albany, New York, dismissed the lawsuit, finding the patient was not entitled to state law remedies because of the FDA's prior approval of the device./ppA U.S. appeals court agreed that the lawsuit was pre-empted by federal law, and the Supreme Court upheld that decision. /p |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Top US court rejects spying case
Headline Topics |
2008/02/19 13:48
|
pThe US Supreme Court has dismissed a legal challenge to a domestic anti-terrorism eavesdropping programme.
President George W Bush authorised the monitoring, without a court order, of international phone calls and e-mails of US citizens after the 9/11 attacks. /ppThe American Civil Liberties Union argued that Mr Bush did not have the constitutional authority to order the programme, which ended last year. /ppThe Supreme Court gave no explanation for its ruling. /ppstrongLegality questioned/strong pThe domestic spying programme was denounced by Democrats and rights activists when it was disclosed in 2005. pA group of civil liberties activists, journalists, academics and lawyers challenged the spying programme in the courts, arguing it violated a 1978 rule prohibiting surveillance of American citizens on US soil without a warrant. pIn July last year, an appeals court struck down a lower court's ruling that found the programme to be unconstitutional. pThe appeals court, based in Cincinnati, dismissed the case because the plaintiffs had failed to show that their communications had been monitored. pBut the Cincinnati judges did not rule on the legality or otherwise of the programme. pThe president rejected claims that he broke the law by ordering surveillance without first securing warrants. He argued the eavesdropping programme was necessary and was targeted against al-Qaeda. pThe Bush administration has so far refused to release documents about the programme that might reveal who was under surveillance. /pp
/p |
|
|
|
|
|
Legal News RSS Feed
