|
|
|
High court won't hear appeal on mortgage ratings
Headline Topics |
2015/11/03 08:52
|
The Supreme Court won't hear an appeal from shareholders who claim the Standard & Poor's ratings firm made false statements about its ratings of risky mortgage investments that helped trigger the financial crisis.
The justices on Monday let stand a lower court ruling that threw out a lawsuit filed by the Boca Raton Firefighters & Police Pension Fund against S&P's parent company, McGraw-Hill.
A federal appeals court ruled 2-1 that statements about the integrity and credibility of S&P's credit ratings used routine, generic language that did not mislead investors.
The shareholders argued that false statements regarding a central aspect of the company's business were enough to violate federal securities laws.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Woman charged in slayings of Connecticut couple due in court
Headline Topics |
2015/11/02 08:53
|
A Connecticut woman accused of conspiring with her boyfriend to kill his parents when they were considering cutting him out of their will is scheduled to make her first court appearance.
Jennifer Valiante of Westport is expected to be arraigned Monday in Bridgeport Superior Court on charges including conspiracy to commit murder and hindering prosecution. It's not clear if she has a lawyer.
Her boyfriend, 27-year-old Kyle Navin of Bridgeport, is facing murder charges in the slayings of his parents, Jeanette and Jeffrey Navin of Easton. His arraignment hasn't been set. His lawyer declined to comment.
The Navins disappeared Aug. 4 and their bodies were found Thursday in Weston.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Britain's High Court rules that Uber app is lawful
Headline Topics |
2015/10/18 00:31
|
Britain's High Court has ruled that the Uber app to hail minicabs is lawful ? a blow to London's famous black cab drivers, who argued that it violated city regulations.
The court's decision Friday came after Transport for London sought clarification as to whether the San Francisco-based company's app worked in the same way as meters used by the strictly regulated black cabs.
The Licensed Taxi Drivers' Association argued the app ? which records a car's location and travel time and feeds it back to servers in California ? worked like a meter.
But Justice Duncan Ouseley disagreed, ruling that the app relies on GPS signals and did not operate in the same way.
Uber has come under fire in several European countries, including France, Italy and Spain.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Virginia executes serial killer who claimed to be disabled
Headline Topics |
2015/10/09 13:34
|
A twice-condemned serial killer who claimed he was intellectually disabled was executed in Virginia on Thursday after a series of last-minute appeals failed.
Alfredo Prieto was pronounced dead at 9:17 p.m. at the Greensville Correctional Center in Jarratt. The 49-year-old was injected with a lethal three-drug combination, including the sedative pentobarbital, which Virginia received from the Texas prison system.
Prieto, wearing glasses, jeans and a light blue shirt, did not resist and showed no emotion as he was strapped to the gurney.
"I would like to say thanks to all my lawyers, all my supporters and all my family members," he said, before mumbling, "Get this over with."
The El Salvador native was sentenced to death in Virginia in 2010 for the murder of a young couple more than two decades earlier. Rachael Raver and her boyfriend, Warren Fulton III, both 22, were found shot to death in a wooded area a few days after being seen at a Washington, D.C., nightspot.
Prieto was on death row in California at the time for raping and murdering a 15-year-old girl and was linked to the Virginia slayings through DNA evidence. California officials agreed to send him to Virginia on the rationale that it was more likely to carry out the execution.
He has been connected to as many as six other killings in California and Virginia, authorities have said, but he was never prosecuted because he had already been sentenced to death.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Familiar, divisive social issues on Supreme Court agenda
Headline Topics |
2015/10/07 13:33
|
The Supreme Court is starting a new term that promises a steady stream of divisive social issues, and also brighter prospects for conservatives who suffered more losses than usual in recent months.
The justices are meeting in public Monday for the first time since a number of high-profile decisions in June that displayed passionate, sometimes barbed disagreements and suggested some bruised feelings among the nine judges.
The first case before the court involves a California woman who lost her legs in a horrific accident after she fell while attempting to board a train in Innsbruck, Austria. The issue is whether she can sue the state-owned Austrian railway in U.S. courts.
Even before the justices took the bench Monday, they rejected hundreds of appeals that piled up over the summer, including San Jose, California's bid to lure the Athletics from Oakland over the objection of Major League Baseball.
Future cases will deal with abortion, religious objections to birth control, race in college admissions and the power of public-sector unions. Cases on immigration and state restrictions on voting also could make it to the court in the next nine months.
The term will play out against the backdrop of the presidential campaign, in which some candidates are talking pointedly about the justices and the prospect of replacing some of them in the next few years. Four justices are in their 80s or late 70s, led by 82-year-old Ruth Bader Ginsburg.
Commentators on the left and right say the lineup of cases suggests that conservatives will win more often than they will lose over the next few months, in contrast to the liberal side's success last term in gay marriage, health care and housing discrimination, among others.
"This term, I'd expect a return to the norm, in which the right side of the court wins the majority, but by no means all of the cases," said Georgetown University law school's Irv Gornstein.
One reason for the confidence is that, as Supreme Court lawyer John Elwood said: "This is a term of sequels." Affirmative action and union fees have been at the court in recent terms and the justices' positions are more or less known.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cleveland appeals 'jock tax' ruling to US Supreme Court
Headline Topics |
2015/10/06 13:33
|
The city of Cleveland says it is within its rights to tax visiting professional athletes based on the number of games they play a year because taxation is a matter of local jurisdiction.
In a filing Tuesday, the city asked the U.S. Supreme Court to back its position after the Ohio Supreme Court struck down Cleveland's system earlier this year.
The state court ruled that Cleveland's method for taxing athletes violates players' due process rights. It ruled the city must assess taxes based on the total number of days each visiting player works in a year, as is common elsewhere.
At issue were challenges by former Chicago Bears linebacker Hunter Hillenmeyer and retired Indianapolis Colts center Jeff Saturday.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Appeals court upholds injunction halting health mandate
Headline Topics |
2015/09/18 16:55
|
A federal appeals court ruled Thursday that President Barack Obama's health care law unjustly burdens religiously affiliated employers by forcing them to help provide insurance coverage for certain contraceptives, even though they can opt out of directly paying for it.
The ruling by a three-judge 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals panel in St. Louis upheld lower court decisions that sided with plaintiffs who included three Christian colleges in Missouri, Michigan and Iowa.
The 25-page opinion conflicts with all other federal appellate courts, which have found in the U.S. government's favor.
As religiously affiliated entities, those colleges victorious with Thursday's ruling don't have to pay directly for their workers' birth control. Instead, they can seek an accommodation that requires their insurance providers to pay for it. But the groups still say the scheme makes them complicit in the providing of contraception and subjected them to possible fines for noncompliance.
Circuit Judge Roger Wollman, writing the ruling on the panel's behalf, wrote that the contraceptive mandate and accommodation process of the Affordable Care Act substantially burdens the plaintiffs' exercise of religion.
Those plaintiffs included Heartland Christian College in Newark, Missouri, Dordt College in Sioux Center, Iowa, and Cornerstone University in Grand Rapids, Michigan, as well as Bethel, Missouri-based CNS International Ministries Inc., a nonprofit provider of addiction services.
The Justice Department, which has called the lawsuits meritless and an attempt to prevent female employees from obtaining coverage, defended the federal government in the cases but directed The Associated Press' questions Thursday to the White House, where a statement called the rulings disappointing.
"As all of the other seven U.S. courts of appeals to address this issue have held, the contraceptive accommodation process strikes the proper balance between ensuring women have equal access to health care and protecting religious beliefs," that statement read.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legal News RSS Feed
