|
|
|
Appeals court upholds California's shark fin ban
Headline Topics |
2015/07/28 12:56
|
A federal appeals court Monday dismissed a legal challenge to a California law banning the sale, distribution and possession of shark fins.
The legislation does not conflict with a 19th century law that gives federal officials authority to manage shark fishing off the California coast or significantly interfere with interstate commerce, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said.
The 2-1 ruling upheld a lower court decision tossing the lawsuit brought by the Chinatown Neighborhood Association and Asian Americans for Political Advancement, a political action committee.
The groups had argued that the ban — passed in 2011 — unfairly targeted the Chinese community, which considers shark fin soup a delicacy. Shark finning is the practice of removing the fins from a living shark, leaving the animal to die.
Joseph Breall, an attorney for the groups, said they were reviewing their options and had not yet decided whether to appeal. He said he was heartened by the dissenting opinion by Judge Stephen Reinhardt, who said the plaintiffs should have been allowed to amend their lawsuit.
The plaintiffs had argued on appeal that the shark fin law conflicted with the federal law intended to manage shark fishing off the California coast.
The majority in the 9th Circuit ruling, however, said the federal law has no requirement that a certain number of sharks be harvested, and even if it did, the California law still allowed sharks to be taken for purposes other than obtaining their fins.
The federal law, additionally, envisions a broad role for states in crafting fishery management plans, and, like California's ban, makes conservation paramount, the court said.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Court: New health law doesn't infringe on religious freedom
Headline Topics |
2015/07/14 09:22
|
The federal health care law doesn't infringe on the religious freedom of faith-based nonprofit organizations that object to covering birth control in employee health plans, a federal appeals court in Denver ruled Tuesday.
The case involves a group of Colorado nuns and four Christian colleges in Oklahoma.
Religious groups are already exempt from covering contraceptives. But the plaintiffs argued that the exemption doesn't go far enough because they must sign away the coverage to another party, making them feel complicit in providing the contraceptives.
The 10th Circuit Court of Appeals disagreed. The judges wrote that the law with the exemption does not burden the exercise of religion.
"Although we recognize and respect the sincerity of plaintiffs' beliefs and arguments, we conclude the accommodation scheme ... does not substantially burden their religious exercise," the three-judge panel wrote.
The same court ruled in 2013 that for-profit companies can join the exempted religious organizations and not provide the contraceptives. The U.S. Supreme Court later agreed with the 10th Circuit in the case brought by the Hobby Lobby arts-and-crafts chain.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Silicon Valley company starts to take court disputes online
Headline Topics |
2015/07/11 09:23
|
Imagine working out a divorce without hiring an attorney or stepping into court or disputing the tax assessment on your home completely online.
A Silicon Valley company is starting to make both possibilities a reality with software that experts say represents the next wave of technology in which the law is turned into computer code that can solve legal battles without the need for a judge or attorney.
"We're not quite at the Google car stage in law, but there are no conceptual or technical barriers to what we're talking about," said Oliver Goodenough, director of the Center for Legal Innovation at Vermont Law School, referring to Google's self-driving car.
The computer programs, at least initially, have the ability to relieve overburdened courts of small claims cases, traffic fines and some family law matters. But Goodenough and other experts envision a future in which even more complicated disputes are resolved online, and they say San Jose, California-based Modria has gone far in developing software to realize that.
"There is a version of the future when computers get so good that we trust them to play this role in our society, and it lets us get justice to more people because it's cheaper and more transparent," said Colin Rule, Modria's co-founder.
Officials in Ohio are using Modria's software to resolve disputes over tax assessments and keep them out of court, and a New York-based arbitration association has deployed it to settle medical claims arising from certain types of car crashes.
In the Netherlands, Modria software is being used to guide people through their divorces.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oklahoma court to look at blocking Tulsa grand jury probe
Headline Topics |
2015/07/02 14:07
|
The Oklahoma Supreme Court said Thursday it will consider whether to stop a grand jury investigation into an embattled sheriff whose longtime friend and volunteer deputy fatally shot an unarmed man.
Attorneys for Tulsa County Sheriff Stanley Glanz want justices to toss out a lower court's decision to empanel a grand jury on July 20. The state Supreme Court late Thursday appointed a referee to hear evidence and arguments in the case on July 14.
More than 6,600 Tulsa residents petitioned for the investigation into whether Glanz neglected his duties and whether reservists who gave gifts to the sheriff were shown special treatment. Glanz's lawyers say some signatures were gathered improperly and the petition should be tossed.
District Judge Rebecca Nightingale on Tuesday rejected Glanz's claims. Terry Simonson, a spokesman for the sheriff, said Glanz is appealing to the high court because the law has been applied incorrectly.
"He has the same rights as every citizen in Oklahoma to defend the position he believes in and the right to appeal based upon that conviction," Simonson said. "That's what he did today."
The petition drive began after reserve deputy Robert Bates, 73, shot and killed Eric Harris on April 2. Harris ran from authorities during a gun-sales sting operation and Bates maintains he confused his stun gun and handgun. Bates has pleaded not guilty to second-degree manslaughter in the slaying.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legal News RSS Feed
