|
|
|
Court denies hospital's bid to perform brain death test
Lawyer News |
2016/07/12 10:37
|
The Virginia Supreme Court has denied a hospital's request to allow it to immediately perform a test to determine whether a 2-year-old who choked on a piece of popcorn is brain dead.
The court Friday denied a petition from Virginia Commonwealth University Health System, which wants to perform an apnea test on Mirranda Grace Lawson. Mirranda's family has refused to allow it.
The Richmond Circuit Court ruled against the Lawsons last month but allowed them to pay a $30,000 bond barring the hospital from conducting the test while they appeal to the Virginia Supreme Court.
The hospital asked the state Supreme Court to throw out the circuit court's bond order. The Supreme Court didn't explain why it rejected the hospital's petition.
The Lawsons' appeal is due to the state Supreme Court in September.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Senate confirms district court judge for New Jersey
Lawyer News |
2016/07/02 10:36
|
The Senate has confirmed President Barack Obama's nominee for the U.S. District Court for the district of New Jersey.
The vote was 92-5 on Wednesday for Brian Martinotti, who has served as a judge on the Superior Court of New Jersey since 2002. Obama nominated him to the district court post in June 2015.
Martinotti worked from 1987 to 2002 at the law firm of Beattie Padovano LLC, where he was elevated to partner in 1994. While at the firm, Martinotti also served as a councilmember for the borough of Cliffside Park from 1991 to 2002.
He was a law clerk to Judge Roger M. Kahn of the New Jersey Tax Court from 1986 to 1987.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Court Vacates $1.8M Ventura Award in 'American Sniper' Case
Lawyer News |
2016/06/13 11:16
|
A federal appeals court on Monday threw out a $1.8 million judgment awarded to former Minnesota Gov. Jesse Ventura, who says he was defamed in the late author Chris Kyle's bestselling book "American Sniper."
The 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals rejected the jury's 2014 award of $500,000 for defamation and $1.3 million for unjust enrichment against Kyle's estate. Kyle, a former SEAL who was the deadliest sniper in U.S. military history with 160 confirmed kills, died in 2013.
The majority of the three-judge panel reversed the unjust-enrichment award, saying it fails as a matter of law. The majority also vacated the defamation award, but sent that portion of the case back to court for a new trial.
Messages left with Ventura's publicist and attorney were not immediately returned Monday. A message left with an attorney for Kyle's estate also did not immediately return a message seeking comment.
Kyle claimed in a subchapter called "Punching Out Scruff Face," to have decked a man, whom he later identified as Ventura, during a fallen SEAL's wake at a California bar in 2006. He wrote that "Scruff Face" had made offensive comments about the elite force, including a remark that the SEALs "deserve to lose a few" in Iraq.
Ventura, a former Underwater Demolition Teams/SEAL member and ex-pro wrestler, testified at trial that Kyle's story was a fabrication. Ventura said he never made the comments and that the altercation never happened. He said the book ruined his reputation in the tight-knit SEAL community.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Appeals court denies Hope Solo's bid to avoid trial
Lawyer News |
2016/06/08 08:59
|
A state appeals court has rejected U.S. women's soccer team goalkeeper Hope Solo's request to avoid trial on misdemeanor domestic violence charges.
Seattlepi.com reports the 34-year-old's appeal related to a 2014 incident at her sister's home in suburban Seattle was denied in a Tuesday ruling.
Solo was accused of being intoxicated and assaulting her sister and 17-year-old nephew in the incident. Her lawyer has said Solo was a victim in the altercation.
The case has bounced between the city of Kirkland and King County courts and is currently back in city court, where Solo had asked for a review.
The appeals court denied the review, essentially upholding the county court's ruling.
It's unclear whether Solo will ask the state Supreme Court to review the appeals court decision.
|
|
|
|
|