|
|
|
US high court: warrant needed for GPS tracking
Headline Legal News |
2012/01/23 10:44
|
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled unanimously Monday that police must get a search warrant before using GPS technology to track criminal suspects.
The ruling represents a serious complication for law enforcement nationwide, which increasingly relies on high tech surveillance of suspects, including the use of various types of satellite technology.
A GPS device installed by police on Washington nightclub owner Antoine Jones' Jeep helped them link him to a suburban house used to stash money and drugs. He was sentenced to life in prison before the appeals court overturned the conviction.
Associate Justice Antonin Scalia said that the government's installation of a GPS device, and its use to monitor the vehicle's movements, constitutes a search, meaning that a warrant is required. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Court throws out judge-drawn Texas electoral maps
Legal Business |
2012/01/20 10:13
|
The Supreme Court on Friday threw out electoral maps drawn by federal judges in Texas that favored minorities. The decision ultimately could affect control of the U.S. House of Representatives and leaves the fate of Texas' April primaries unclear.
The justices ordered the three-judge court in San Antonio to come up with new plans that pay more attention to maps created by Texas' Republican-dominated state Legislature. All four of the state's new congressional seats could swing based on the outcome.
But the Supreme Court did not compel the use of the state's maps in this year's elections, as Texas wanted. Only Justice Clarence Thomas said he would have gone that far.
The court's unsigned opinion thus did not blaze any new trails in election law or signal retreat from a key provision of the Voting Rights Act, as some supporters of the law feared would result from this case.
Still, the outcome appeared to favor Republicans by instructing the judges to stick more closely to what the Legislature did, said election law expert Richard Hasen, a professor at the University of California, Irvine, law school. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Colo. court weighs energy leases near Utah parks
Headline Legal News |
2012/01/19 10:13
|
A federal appeals court must decide if the Obama administration gave energy companies sufficient notice that it was scrapping oil and gas leases auctioned off near national parks in Utah in the closing days of the Bush presidency.
The sale near Arches and Canyonlands national parks and Dinosaur National Monument was protested by environmentalists, including Robert Redford, and prompted an act of civil disobedience by a University of Utah student who entered the bidding and drove up prices.
Energy companies are trying to win back the leases and asked the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver on Thursday to reconsider whether a news conference by Interior Secretary Ken Salazar soon after President Barack Obama took office counts as public notice of his final decision.
The government argues that the Feb. 4, 2009, announcement and an internal memo two days later served as notice. The energy companies claim that the new administration didn't follow typical notification procedures and that the decision wasn't final until the Bureau of Land Management carried out Salazar's decision on Feb. 12, 2009.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Bernstein Liebhard LLP Announces Class Action Lawsuit
Legal Business |
2012/01/18 10:09
|
Bernstein Liebhard LLP today announced that a class action has been commenced in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio on behalf of purchasers of Chemed Corporation common stock during the period between February 15, 2010 and November 16, 2011.
The complaint charges Chemed and certain of its officers and directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Chemed, through its subsidiaries, provides hospice care and repair and cleaning services in the United States. The Company operates in two segments: VITAS and Roto-Rooter.
The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants issued materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company’s business and prospects. Specifically, defendants misrepresented and/or failed to disclose the following adverse facts: (a) that the Company engaged in a scheme to fraudulently bill Medicare for hospice services for patients who did not qualify for hospice and fraudulently shifted the costs of those patients from health maintenance organizations that covered those patients prior to enrollment in hospice to the U.S. government; (b) that a significant portion of the Company’s hospice enrollments, revenues and earnings were the direct result of defendants’ scheme to enroll ineligible patients in hospice and fraudulently bill Medicare for hospice services; (c) that, in a complaint filed under seal, a former VITAS manager had accused the Company of engaging in a Company-wide scheme to enroll ineligible patients in hospice and fraudulently bill Medicare; (d) that the Company failed to maintain adequate internal controls and procedures with respect to hospice enrollments and Medicare billings; (e) that the Company’s financial results were materially overstated as a result of defendants’ fraudulent scheme to enroll ineligible patients in hospice; and (f) that, as a result of the foregoing, defendants lacked a reasonable basis for their positive statements about the Company and its prospects.
On November 16, 2011, a Bloomberg article entitled “Whistleblower Accuses Chemed Unit of Medicare HMO Conspiracy” disclosed that a former VITAS manager had accused Chemed of defrauding the federal government by conspiring with health insurers to enroll Medicare patients who were not dying into hospice. The article also discussed a U.S. Department of Justice investigation into fraudulent conduct by VITAS. In response to these announcements, shares of the Company’s stock fell $6.87 per share, or 11%, to close at $50.65 per share on November 16, 2011.
Plaintiffs seek to recover damages on behalf of all Class members who purchased or otherwise acquired Chemed shares during the Class Period. If you purchased or otherwise acquired Chemed shares during the Class Period, and either lost money on the transaction or still hold the shares, you may wish to join in this action to serve as lead plaintiff. In order to do so, you must meet certain requirements set forth in the applicable law and file appropriate papers no later than March 12, 2012.
A “lead plaintiff” is a representative party that acts on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. In order to be appointed lead plaintiff, the court must determine that the class member’s claim is typical of the claims of other class members, and that the class member will adequately represent the class. Under certain circumstances, one or more class members may together serve as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any recovery is not, however, affected by the decision whether or not to serve as a lead plaintiff. You may retain Bernstein Liebhard LLP, or other counsel of your choice, to serve as your counsel in this action.
If you are interested in discussing your rights as a Chemed shareholder and/or have information relating to the matter, please contact Joseph R. Seidman, Jr. at (877) 779-1414 or seidman@bernlieb.com.
Bernstein Liebhard has pursued hundreds of securities, consumer and shareholder rights cases and recovered almost $3 billion for its clients. It has been named to The National Law Journal’s “Plaintiffs’ Hot List” in each of the last nine years.
You can obtain a copy of the complaint from the clerk of the court for the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio.
Bernstein Liebhard LLP
10 East 40th Street
New York, New York 10016
(877) 779-1414
www.bernlieb.com
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Michigan Law Firm Adds Top Rated Malpractice Attorney
Legal Business |
2012/01/16 09:39
|
The Michigan personal injury law firm of Buckfire & Buckfire, P.C. is proud to announce the addition of medical malpractice attorney Randall M. Blau to our team of already award winning, experienced Michigan medical malpractice lawyers!
Partner and attorney, Lawrence J. Buckfire stated, “We could not be more pleased to add such an extraordinary medical malpractice lawyer to our law firm. Randall Blau was a perfect fit for the law firm, meeting the highest standards and quality that not only we, but our clients, require and expect to be a part of our team. Randall is a respected and highly reputable attorney throughout the State of Michigan and we are proud to have Randy join our law firm as our Michigan medical malpractice lawyer.”
Mr. Blau has obtained millions of dollars in verdicts and settlements for his injured clients. He specializes in medical malpractice, birth injuries, nursing home neglect, wrongful death, and automobile negligence cases. He is a member of the Michigan Association for Justice, the Oakland County Bar Association and the State Bar of Michigan. Randy has been an invited speaker at a variety of legal seminars, an invited member of the Million Dollar Advocates Forum and has been consistently listed in Who's Who in Law throughout his career.
Randall M. Blau earned his Bachelor of Arts degree from Kalamazoo College in 1993 and his Juris Doctor degree from the University of Detroit School of Law in 1996. He is admitted to practice law in state and federal courts throughout Michigan and has handled cases in Ohio, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Minnesota and Florida. He has obtained numerous settlements that have been listed in the Top Ten Settlements of the Year for the State of Michigan multiple times during the last decade.
Prior to joining Buckfire & Buckfire, Randall was a partner with Neuman Anderson, P.C. and senior litigation attorney with Southfield-based Maddin, Hauser, Wartell, Roth & Heller, P.C. He is an active member of a number of charitable and nonprofit organizations, and currently resides in West Bloomfield with his wife and two sons.
Buckfire & Buckfire, P.C. handles all accident and injury cases, including auto accidents, motorcycle accidents, wrongful death cases, medical malpractice lawsuits, nursing home neglect cases, slip and fall cases, dog bite attack cases, and all other personal injury matters throughout the State of Michigan. Our Michigan personal injury attorneys are known for their meticulous case preparation-an approach that results in major verdicts and settlements for their clients. For more information on our personal injury law firm, please feel free to call our office, toll free at (800) 606-1717. |
|
|
|
|
|
Legal News RSS Feed
