|
|
|
Conn. court: church can't be sued by ex-principal
Headline Legal News |
2011/07/25 09:04
|
The Connecticut Supreme Court ruled Monday that a former Catholic school principal cannot sue the Archdiocese of Hartford on claims she was wrongly fired for not retaliating against a student, who complained about sexual remarks allegedly made by a priest now accused of abusing children.
The high court unanimously overturned a lower court ruling in favor of Patricia Dayner, former principal of St. Hedwig's School in Naugatuck. Justices said Dayner's lawsuit against the archdiocese was barred under the "ministerial exception" to state courts' authority to decide employment cases. The exception is based on the First Amendment right to freedom of religion, and the right of religious organizations to control their own internal affairs.
But the state Supreme Court, in its first ruling on the issue, didn't ban all labor-related lawsuits against religious institutions. Justices adopted the view of the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New York, which ruled in 2008 that courts can decide to step into church employment disputes based on the nature of the complaints and whether court action would intrude on churches' right to decide issues related to doctrine or internal governance.
Federal appeal courts have issued conflicting rulings in ministerial exception cases. The U.S. Supreme Court will take up the issue later this year, when it hears a case involving a teacher at a church-run school in Michigan and decides whether ministerial exception applies to the Americans with Disabilities Act in cases where church workers are deemed secular, and not religious, employees. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Judge wants agency to investigate Meijer lawyer
Headline Legal News |
2011/07/25 08:27
|
A judge believes a lawyer committed perjury when he denied knowing anything about the role of Meijer Inc. in a 2007 recall election of township officials in northern Michigan's Grand Traverse County.
Judge Philip Rodgers said he has referred the matter involving Timothy Stoepker to the Michigan Attorney Grievance Commission, a watchdog agency.
"I believe it occurred, and I have an ethical responsibility to report it," Rodgers told the Traverse City Record-Eagle.
Stoepker, an attorney at the firm Dickinson Wright in Grand Rapids, represented Meijer during a dispute over a new store in Acme Township. Voters rejected the store in 2005, and township officials were targeted for recall in 2007.
Meijer, a major Midwestern retailer, later acknowledged illegally financing the recall effort and subsequently paid a $190,000 fine.
During a deposition in a civil lawsuit by a township official, Stoepker was asked what he knew about Meijer's role. "I have no knowledge of that at all," he replied.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Calif county drafting solar-ag compatibility law
Topics in Legal News |
2011/07/25 03:27
|
A California county is drafting a solar power law designed to protect agriculture.
The Yolo County ordinance would require solar project applicants to prove there is no available non-prime farmland nearby and would require developers to set aside land for farming and wildlife.
The Sacramento Bee says a vote on the ordinance could come as early as September.
Big solar projects are blossoming in California because of a new state law requiring utilities to obtain 33 percent of their power from renewable sources. The deadline for hitting the 33 percent mark is 2020.
Plans for a solar law come as developers Angelo Tsakopoulos and Phil Angelides propose rows of metal and concrete solar panels on 688 acres of rice-growing land in Yolo County near Interstate 80 and the Yolo Causeway.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Iowa insurers get more time on new health law
Legal Business |
2011/07/24 08:27
|
Iowa insurance companies have been given more time to comply with a new federal rule designed to curb insurers' profits.
The regulation that went into effect this year calls for insurance companies to spend at least 80 percent of premiums on medical care and quality assurance. For employer plans covering more than 50 people, the requirement is 85 cents. Insurers that fall short of the mark are required to issue their customers a rebate.
The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services told the state on Friday that Iowa insurers will be given have to reach the 80 percent mark by 2013, but will be required to meet interim goals until then, the Des Moines Register reported.
The Iowa Insurance Division had requested extra time to comply with the law, citing fears that insurers would leave the state in droves. Six pulled out of Iowa after the law was passed.
Steve Larsen, director of HHS' Center for Consumer Information and Oversight, said in a letter to the state that implementing the law in Iowa in 2011 could cause turmoil in the insurance market. So, he laid out a timetable for compliance that calls for Iowa insurers to spend 67 percent of premiums on medical care this year, 75 percent in 2012 and 80 percent in 2013.
Iowa insurance commissioner Susan Voss said she wasn't displeased by the decision. The state had sought even more time for companies to comply, but, "I don't think we'll see companies exit as a result of this," Voss said.
Of those particularly hard-hit by the law are insurers who sell individual policies because those premiums are more volatile. Employers or large groups can negotiate for better premiums, and the risk in those plans are spread among the group.
There are 56 insurance companies in Iowa that offer individual policies. Seven of those account for 95 percent of the market, with Wellmark holding onto almost 84 percent. Wellmark spent 92 percent of premiums on care but none of the state's other top insurers met the 80 percent standard in 2010.
Federal regulators said that had the law gone into effect this year, Iowa consumers would have received $6.5 million in rebates over three years.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Indiana Court of Appeals Disagrees Over Effect of Admissions
Law Blogs |
2011/07/21 09:03
|
Today, the Indiana Court of Appeals issued a memorandum decision, uncitable as authority under App. R. 65(D), in which the Court disagreed over the extent to which admissions could be used against a party in a motion for summary judgment in Clark v. Clark, Cause No. 01A02-1007-CT-759. While the decision itself cannot be used as precedent, the disagreement is informative.
In this case, a father and son traveled in a car together to the home of another person. When they arrived, the son got out of the car to help the father parallel park. The son positioned himself in front of his father's vehicle, between it and another vehicle parked in the alley. When the father's vehicle was in the appropriate position, the son signaled for the father to stop by putting his hand up. The father hit the gas pedal instead of the brake, and the son was pinned between his father's vehicle and the parked vehicle. The son sustained serious injuries to his leg. He brought suit against his father for his injuries and the father asserted the Indiana Guest Statute as an affirmative defense.
The Indiana Guest Statute provides that people with certain types of relationships, such as father-son, cannot sue each other for injuries arising out of the operation of a motor vehicle if the person is "in or upon" the vehicle at the time of the injuries. During the course of the litigation, the son sent requests for admissions to the father. Two of those requests and responses are reproduced below.
19. On September 5, 2007, at the time of the collision, Robert L. Clark, Jr. was not in the Chevrolet.
RESPONSE: At the moment of impact the plaintiff was not in the Chevrolet, whether he was a pedestrian is genuine issue for trial and therefore denied.
20. On September 5, 2007, at the time of the collision, Robert L. Clark, Jr. was not upon the Chevrolet.
RESPONSE: At the moment of impact the plaintiff was not upon the Chevrolet, whether he was a pedestrian is genuine issue for trial and therefore denied.
Based on those responses, the son moved for summary judgment. The father filed a cross-motion and the trial court granted the father's motion.
On appeal, the father argued that the admissions were not dispositive of whether the son was in or upon the vehicle at the time of his injuries because that is a legal conclusion that the Court would have to make after applying the law to the facts. The Court disagreed, holding that admissions can be directed to legal conclusions, not merely facts.
The dissent found the admissions ambiguous, because of the qualification about whether the son was a pedestrian and because there were questions concerning whether "in" and "upon" have the same generic meaning as they do as a legal term of art.
The lesson here is that requests for admissions can be powerful litigation tools and we lawyers must be careful when responding to them. You may find out that you have admitted something inadvertently.
Lesson:
1.Even a qualified response to a request for admission can count as an admission.
Brad A. Catlin
Price Waicukauski & Riley, LLC
http://www.indianalawupdate.com/entry/Indiana-Court-of-Appeals-Disagrees-Over-Effect-of-Admissions
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legal News RSS Feed
