Law Firm News
Today's Date: Bookmark This Website
Ex-Missouri governor urges court to allow wind-energy line
Headline Topics | 2018/04/03 16:02
Missouri's former governor is urging the state Supreme Court to overturn a decision blocking a 780-mile power line that would carry wind energy across the Midwest.

Former Gov. Jay Nixon led arguments Tuesday before the high court on behalf Clean Line Energy Partners. The Houston-based company wants to build a $2.3 billion transmission line from western Kansas across Missouri and Illinois to an Indiana power grid serving eastern states.

Missouri regulators appointed by Nixon rejected the power line last year, citing a court ruling that they said first required utilities to get approval from local governments.

Nixon's term as governor ended in January 2017. Two of the seven judges hearing the case Tuesday had been appointed by Nixon. They didn't recuse but also did not ask questions.



Drug companies want Supreme Court to take eye drop dispute
Headline Topics | 2018/04/01 16:03
Eye drop users everywhere have had it happen. Tilt your head back, drip a drop in your eye and part of that drop always seems to dribble down your cheek.

But what most people see as an annoyance, some prescription drop users say is grounds for a lawsuit. Drug companies' bottles dispense drops that are too large, leaving wasted medication running down their faces, they say.

Don't roll your eyes. Major players in Americans' medicine cabinets — including Allergan, Bausch & Lomb, Merck and Pfizer — are asking the Supreme Court to get involved in the case.

On the other side are patients using the companies' drops to treat glaucoma and other eye conditions. Wasted medication affects their wallets, they say. They argue they would pay less for their treatment if their bottles of medication were designed to drip smaller drops. That would mean they could squeeze more doses out of every bottle. And they say companies could redesign the droppers on their bottles but have chosen not to.

The companies, for their part, have said the patients shouldn't be able to sue in federal court because their argument they would have paid less for treatment is based on a bottle that doesn't exist and speculation about how it would affect their costs if it did. They point out that the size of their drops was approved by the Food and Drug Administration and redesigned bottles would require FDA approval. The cost of changes could be passed on to patients, possibly resulting in treatment that costs more, they say.

Courts haven't seen eye to eye on whether patients should be able to sue. That's why the drugmakers are asking the Supreme Court to step in. A federal appeals court in Chicago threw out one lawsuit over drop size. But a federal appeals court in Philadelphia let the similar case now before the Supreme Court go forward. That kind of disagreement tends to get the Supreme Court's attention.

And if a drop-size lawsuit can go forward, so too could other packaging design lawsuits, like one by "toothpaste users whose tubes of toothpaste did not allow every bit of toothpaste to be used," wrote Kannon Shanmugam, a frequent advocate before the Supreme Court who is representing the drug companies in asking the high court to take the case.


Arizona court to hear arguments on immigrant tuition case
Headline Topics | 2018/03/27 16:04
The Arizona Supreme Court will hear arguments on whether young immigrants granted deferred deportation status under a program started by former President Barack Obama are eligible for lower in-state college tuition.

The hearing is set for Monday after the justices agreed in February to consider an appeal by the Maricopa County Community Colleges District, which won an initial ruling in 2015 that was overturned in June by the state Court of Appeals.

The Court of Appeals ruling said the 2012 Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program known as DACA did not confer legal status and each state can decide on optional benefits for DACA recipients.

Arizona law bars public benefits such as in-state tuition for students without legal status. Pima Community College and a teachers union support the Maricopa County district's appeal.


Court: Government can't block immigrant teens from abortion
Headline Topics | 2018/03/26 16:05
A federal court in Washington has told the Trump administration that the government can't interfere with the ability of pregnant immigrant teens being held in federal custody to obtain abortions.

A judge issued an order Friday evening barring the government from "interfering with or obstructing" pregnant minors' access to abortion counseling or abortions, among other things, while a lawsuit proceeds. The order covers pregnant minors being held in federal custody after entering the country illegally.

Lawyers for the Department of Health and Human Services, which is responsible for sheltering children who illegally enter the country unaccompanied by a parent, have said the department has a policy of "refusing to facilitate" abortions. And the director of the office that oversees the shelters has said he believes teens in his agency's care have no constitutional right to abortion.

The American Civil Liberties Union brought a lawsuit on behalf of the minors, which the judge overseeing the case also Friday allowed to go forward as a class action lawsuit.

"We have been able to secure justice for these young pregnant women in government custody who will no longer be subject to the government's policy of coercion and obstruction while the case continues," said ACLU attorney Brigitte Amiri after the judge's order became public.

The government can appeal the judge's order. A Department of Justice spokesman didn't immediately respond to an emailed request for comment Friday evening.

The health department said in a statement Saturday that it "strongly maintains that taxpayers are not responsible for facilitating the abortion of unaccompanied minors who entered the country illegally and are currently in the government's care." It said it is "working closely with the Justice Department to review the court's order and determine next steps."

The ACLU and Trump administration have been sparring for months over the government's policy. In a high-profile case last year, the ACLU represented a teen who entered the U.S. illegally in September and learned while in federal custody in Texas that she was pregnant.

The teen, referred to in court paperwork as Jane Doe, obtained a state court order permitting her to have an abortion and secured private funding to pay for it, but federal officials refused to transport her or temporarily release her so that others could take her to get the procedure.

The teen was ultimately able to get an abortion in October as a result of the lawsuit, but the Trump administration has accused the ACLU of misleading the government during the case, a charge the ACLU has denied.

The teen was ultimately able to get an abortion in October as a result of the lawsuit, but the Trump administration has accused the ACLU of misleading the government during the case, a charge the ACLU has denied.

The ACLU has since represented several other teens who have sought abortions while in custody, but the organization doesn't know of any others actively seeking abortions, Amiri said Friday night. The judge's order now covers any teens currently in custody or who come in to custody while the lawsuit goes forward.



[PREV] [1][2][3][4][5][6].. [125] [NEXT]
All
Network News
Industry News
Lawyer News
Headline Topics
Blog Updates
Legal Business
Headline Court News
Court Watch News
Interview
Topics
Press Release
Law Opinions
Marketing
Political View
Law School News
Clicking 'checkout' could co..
Question of sales tax on onl..
Clicking 'checkout' could co..
Supreme Court rejects anti-a..
Michigan Democrats back Ness..
Zuckerberg Flubs Details of ..
Facebook to stop spending ag..
Russian court blocks popular..
Singer Cliff Richard's case ..
Court: Teen accused in schoo..
North Carolina court allows ..
Retailers hope for certainty..
Ohio court to decide if ex-p..
Expensive, partisan Wisconsi..
Ex-Missouri governor urges c..
Supreme Court rejects appeal..
Trump administration backs P..
Drug companies want Supreme ..
Large Midwest energy project..


   Lawyer & Law Firm Links
Chicago Truck Drivers Lawyer
Chicago Workers' Comp Attorneys
www.krol-law.com
Philadelphia Employment Lawyer
Philadelphia Employment Law Firm
www.meweinsteinlaw.com
Connecticut Special Education Lawyer
www.fortelawgroup.com
Oregon Bankruptcy Attorney
Bankruptcy Lawyer Oregon
www.willamettevalleybankruptcy.com
Amherst, Ohio Divorce Lawyer
Sylkatis Law - Child Custody
loraindivorceattorney.com
St. Louis Missouri Criminal Defense Lawyer
St. Charles DUI Attorney
www.lynchlawonline.com
San Francisco Trademark Lawyer
San Francisco Copyright Lawyer
www.onulawfirm.com
Santa Ana Workers' Compensation Lawyers
www.gentryashtonlaw.com
New Rochelle Accidents Attorneys
New Rochelle Personal Injury
www.kboattorneys.com
Chicago Business Law Attorney
Corporate Litigation Attorneys
www.rothlawgroup.com
Oregon Family Law Attorney
Divorce Lawyer Eugene. Family Law
www.mjmlawoffice.com
 
 
© Law Firm Network. All rights reserved.

Disclaimer: The content contained on the web site has been prepared by Legal News Media as a service to the internet community and is not intended to constitute legal advice or a substitute for consultation with a licensed legal professional in a particular case or circumstance. Blog postings and hosted comments are available for general educational purposes only and should not be used to assess a specific legal situation. Law Firm Website Design Attorney Web Design That Works