|
|
|
Appeals court hears challenge to health care law
Court News |
2011/09/24 09:45
|
A conservative-leaning panel of federal appellate judges raised concerns about President Barack Obama's health care overhaul Friday, but suggested the challenge to it may be premature.
The arguments at the U.S. Court of Appeals in Washington over a lawsuit against Obama's signature domestic legislative achievement focused on whether Congress overstepped its authority in requiring people to buy health insurance or pay a penalty on their taxes, beginning in 2014.
But Judge Brett Kavanaugh, a former top aide to President George W. Bush who appointed him to the bench, said that he has a "major concern" that courts might not be able to rule on the law's constitutionality until 2015. That's because a federal law bars most challenges to tax-related legislation before the tax or penalty is paid.
A federal appeals court in Richmond cited that law in throwing out another challenge to the overhaul. Two other appeals courts have reached differing conclusions — one declaring the law unconstitutional and the other upholding it. The Supreme Court is expected to weigh in and could possibly even decide to review the law before the Washington circuit issues an opinion. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Class Action Filed Against Former, Current A&P Execs
Court News |
2011/09/19 23:50
|
A class action has been filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey on behalf of purchasers of the securities of the Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co. Inc. (A&P) for the period between July 23, 2009, and Dec. 10, 2010. The complaint, filed Sept. 9 by Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, a 180-lawyer firm with offices in San Diego, San Francisco, New York, Boca Raton, Washington, Philadelphia and Atlanta, claims that some former and current A&P executives violated the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. A&P itself wasn’t named as a defendant in the action because it filed for bankruptcy protection in December 2010.
Those named in the action are former Executive Chairman and CEO Christian Haub, former CEO and President Eric Claus, former CFO and Treasurer Brenda Galgano, Vice Chairman and Chief Strategy Officer Andreas Guldin, former CEO and President Ron Marshall, and current CEO and President Sam Martin.
The complaint alleges that during the period mentioned above, the defendants failed to disclose material adverse facts about the company’s true financial condition, business and prospects. Specifically, the class action alleges that the executives failed to reveal that A&P was facing increased low-cost competition from retailers such as Walmart and Target, which negatively affected its business and financial condition; that the Pathmark acquisition was a “complete disaster” for the company, as Pathmark’s operations were in far worse condition than had been represented to investors; that A&P wasn’t operating according to internal expectations and couldn’t achieve the guidance endorsed by the defendants; and that, as a result of these factors, the defendants lacked a reasonable basis for their positive statements about the company, its operations and prospects.
The class action seeks to recover damages on behalf of all purchasers of A&P securities during the period noted above. Those who are member of this class can view a copy of the complaint or join the class action online at www.rgrdlaw.com/cases/aandp
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Calif. gay marriage ban faces next legal hurdle
Court News |
2011/09/02 08:51
|
California's same-sex marriage ban faces its next legal test Tuesday when the state's highest court attempts to shed light on whether the voter-approved measure's backers have legal authority to appeal the federal ruling that overturned Proposition 8.
The California Supreme Court is scheduled to hear an hour of arguments on that question, which could prove crucial to the future of the voter-approved ban. The federal appeals court that is considering the initiative's constitutionality wants the state court to weigh in on the matter before it issues its decision.
The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has expressed doubts about the ability of Proposition 8's sponsors to challenge the lower court ruling absent the involvement of California's governor or attorney general, both of whom refused to appeal a federal judge's August 2010 decision striking down the ban as a violation of gay Californians' civil rights.
The court punted the question to the California Supreme Court earlier this year, saying it was a matter of state law.
Lawyers for the coalition of religious and conservative groups that qualified Proposition 8 for the November 2008 ballot maintain they are legally eligible to represent the majority of California voters who approved the same-sex marriage ban. They argue that because California has such a vigorous citizen's initiative process, it would not make sense for elected officials to effectively veto measures by not defending them in court.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Motion to bar Montana, Idaho wolf hunts denied
Court News |
2011/08/24 10:15
|
A federal appeals court on Thursday denied a request by environmental groups to halt wolf hunts that are scheduled to begin next week in Idaho and Montana.
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals denied the request by the Alliance for the Wild Rockies and other groups. The groups were seeking to cancel the hunts while the court considers a challenge to congressional action in April that stripped wolves of federal protections in Montana and Idaho, and in parts of Washington, Oregon and Utah.
Earlier this month, U.S. District Judge Donald Molloy in Missoula reluctantly upheld a budget rider that was inserted by Rep. Mike Simpson, R-Idaho, and Sen. Jon Tester, D-Mont. It marked the first time since the passage of the Endangered Species Act in 1973 that Congress forcibly removed protections from a plant or animal.
Molloy ruled that the way Congress went about removing endangered species protections from the Northern Rockies gray wolf undermined the rule of law but did not violate the Constitution. Meanwhile, the environmental groups argued Congress' actions were unconstitutional because they violated the principle of separation of powers.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Federal court rejects Houston cop killer's appeal
Court News |
2011/08/23 04:32
|
A federal appeals court has rejected an appeal from the convicted killer of an off-duty Houston police officer arguing that two jurors at his capital murder trial in 1999 were improperly rejected by prosecutors because they were black.
The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals decision upholds a ruling from the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals in the case of 32-year-old Anthony Haynes, who is black. He was condemned to death for the 1998 shooting death of Houston Police Sgt. Kent Kincaid, who was white.
Acting on an appeal from the Texas attorney general's office, the U.S. Supreme Court had ordered the 5th Circuit to reconsider its 2009 decision that Haynes get a new trial or be released from death row. The Supreme Court had in 1986 found it unconstitutional to dismiss a juror solely because of race, but the justices said the 5th Circuit panel misinterpreted its rulings when it decided Haynes deserved a new trial.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legal News RSS Feed
