|
|
|
Appeals court weighs suit in US Marshals shooting
Network News |
2015/01/30 09:41
|
An appeals court is deciding whether deputy U.S. marshals who shot and wounded a teenage driver eight years ago may be sued in federal court, a case that's unfolding amid a national debate about police use of force and the legal protections afforded to law enforcement.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit heard arguments last month and could issue an opinion soon.
The case of driver Michael Fenwick raises questions about how police can deal with fleeing individuals and the role video should play in analyzing a police pursuit. A case that presented similar issues was decided by the U.S. Supreme Court last year after fascinated justices watched dashboard camera video of the chase.
The key issue for the appeals court is whether the deputies are entitled to qualified immunity, a legal principle that shields government officials from being sued unless their actions violate clearly established constitutional rights. A lower-court judge in 2013 allowed the case to go forward, saying there were legitimate questions about whether excessive force was used, but rejected many other arguments from Fenwick's lawyer.
An appeals court ruling in favor of the marshals would end the case. But if the judges prove sympathetic to arguments that the shooting was unjustified, the case would be returned to the trial court, where it could ultimately reach a jury and add to a body of law that is still developing. That's a potentially heavy legal burden, given past court decisions that give law enforcement leeway in firing at fleeing suspects if they feel endangered. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Court: Some NC legislator emails must be released
Network News |
2014/11/21 16:14
|
North Carolina legislators aren't required to give up emails with other lawmakers and staff to those suing over the state's election-overhaul law, but correspondence with third parties is largely fair game, a federal judge ruled Thursday.
U.S. Magistrate Judge Joi Peake ruled on the extent of legislative confidentiality in three lawsuits filed against the state and officials including Gov. Pat McCrory and challenging provisions of the 2013 law. Attorneys are collecting evidence for trial on the lawsuits next summer.
Those who sued demanded emails and other correspondence from more than a dozen state legislators that they hoped would provide insight to why the law was approved. The lawsuits, filed by civil rights groups, the U.S. government and voters among others, say that elements of the law are unconstitutional and discriminatory under the Voting Rights Act because they harm minority voters.
The lawsuits seek to overturn provisions that reduced the number of early voting days by one week, ended same-day registration during the early-voting period and mandate photo identification to vote in 2016.
In her ruling, Peake said legislative privilege applies to communications between legislators and their aides but not between lawmakers and constituents or interest groups. The state's attorneys cited no authority by which lawmakers should receive the privilege simply because they expected privacy with the communications, she wrote.
Peake rejected a request by the suing groups to require state attorneys to create a log of specific documents with lawmakers or staff corresponding with each other and that lawmakers believe are subject to the privilege — presumably for Peake later to decide whether the documents should be disclosed.
The privilege log "would itself significantly intrude into the legislative sphere, and would also place a heavy burden on the legislators in contravention of one of the aims of the legislative privilege," she wrote. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Court weighs role of race in Alabama redistricting
Network News |
2014/11/13 15:46
|
The Supreme Court wrestled Wednesday with a dispute over the use of race to redraw political districts that turns the usual arguments on their heads.
The complicated case argued at the high court involves the use of a landmark voting rights law that led to the election of African-Americans across the South and Supreme Court decisions that limited the use of race to draw electoral maps.
Only in this case, Republicans in Alabama are invoking the Voting Rights Act to justify concentrating black voters in some legislative districts, and African-Americans challenging the state's legislative maps said the GOP relied too heavily on race.
"Do you realize you are making the argument that the opponents of black plaintiffs used to make here?" Justice Antonin Scalia asked a lawyer for the challengers. Scalia appeared favorable to the state's argument.
Justice Stephen Breyer was more skeptical of the state's claims, but he too found the role reversal curious. "This is an obverse and odd situation," Breyer told Alabama Solicitor General Andrew Brasher.
The outcome could come down to whether the justices think that race was the motivating factor in the state's 2012 redistricting or that Republicans merely tried to maximize their partisan advantage. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
North Carolina Worker's Compensation & Social Security Disability
Network News |
2014/11/04 14:43
|
We at DiRusso & DiRusso have been helping those in our area with legal need for the past 23 years. Located near Mount Airy, North Carolina, we are grateful for the citizens of Surry County for consistently choosing us for legal representation. Our staff takes pride in this distinction and we believe it is wise that our clients chose local
counsel.
Unlike firms in the larger cities, it is important to us that our clients speak directly with DiRusso and DiRusso, not assistants or paralegals. This local touch extends to our knowledge of the local employers, local court officials, and local employers. It is of upmost importance that we are available to you and sensitive to the needs of
the area.
In addition to being local, we also have the expertise and resources to advocate for you, no matter who you're going against. We at DiRusso and DiRusso are here to listen compassionately about the difficult time you may be having, while also being solution-oriented. Our attorneys are dedicated to representing their clients, and nobody else. We will provide you with current rules, cases, and codes to keep you up to date with the law.
Call us today to speak with an attorney regarding your case. Your initial consultation concerning Personal Injury, Social Security Disability, and Workers' Compensation is always free.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legal News RSS Feed
