|
|
|
Justices unlikely to have last word on health care
Court Watch |
2011/11/15 08:59
|
President Barack Obama's historic health care overhaul divided the nation from the day he signed it into law, and that seems unlikely to change no matter how the Supreme Court rules on its constitutionality.
Some legal disputes, like the 2008 presidential election, the court can settle. Others rage on, such as abortion. It may take another decade to find the balance between private and public responsibility for health care in America, a nation disdainful of big government yet historically unable to guarantee affordable basic coverage to its citizens.
"Either way it rules, the Supreme Court decision will not end the debate on health care," said former Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle, an influential Democratic adviser. "It is, and will largely remain, a debate on the role of government."
The Supreme Court's announcement on Monday that it will take up the constitutional challenge to what Republicans deride as "Obamacare," sets the stage for a decision next summer in the heat of the presidential election campaign.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Scott+Scott LLP Announces Securities Class Action Lawsuit
Court Watch |
2011/11/14 11:24
|
Scott+Scott LLP filed a class action complaint against Human Genome Sciences, Inc., certain of the Company's senior officers and directors and GlaxoSmithKline plc in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland. The action for violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 is brought on behalf of those purchasing the common stock of HGSI between July 20, 2009 and November 11, 2010, inclusive (the "Class Period"), including all persons who acquired the common stock of HGSI in the Company's July 28, 2009 public offering at $14 per share and in its December 2, 2009 public offering of common stock at $26.75.
If you purchased the common stock of HGSI during the Class Period and wish to serve as a lead plaintiff in the action, you must move the Court no later than 60 days from today. Any member of the investor class may move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff through counsel of its choice, or may choose to do nothing and remain an absent class member. If you wish to discuss this action or have questions concerning this notice or your rights, please contact Scott+Scott (scottlaw@scott-scott.com), (800) 404-7770, (860) 537-5537 or visit the Scott+Scott HGSI Pharmaceutical website for more information: www.scott-scott.com/cases/hgs.html. There is no cost or fee to you.
The complaint filed in the action alleges that, during the Class Period, HGSI issued false and misleading statements concerning Benlysta(R) (belimumab) ("Benlysta"), the Company's potential new drug for the treatment of Systemic Lupus Erythematosus, a chronic, life-threatening autoimmune disease. Specifically, the complaint alleges that defendants failed to disclose that Benlysta was associated with suicide in clinical drug trials conducted by the Company.
The complaint alleges that when the U.S. Food and Drug Administration posted its analysis of Benlysta on the Internet on November 12, 2010, investors learned for the first time of the association between Benlysta and suicide in clinical trials of the drug, causing HGSI's common stock price to decline precipitously. Meanwhile, the complaint alleges, during the Class Period, HGSI sold to investors more than 44 million shares of its common stock in public offerings at artificially inflated prices, receiving $850 million in net proceeds.
Scott+Scott has significant experience in prosecuting major securities, antitrust and employee retirement plan actions throughout the United States. The firm represents pension funds, foundations, individuals and other entities worldwide. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Court to look at life in prison for juveniles
Court Watch |
2011/11/07 12:26
|
The Supreme Court on Monday agreed to decide whether juveniles convicted of killing someone may be locked up for life with no chance of parole, a follow-up to last year's ruling barring such sentences for teenagers whose crimes do not include killing.
The justices will examine a pair of cases from the South involving young killers who are serving life sentences for crimes they committed when they were 14.
Both cases were brought by the Equal Justice Initiative in Montgomery, Ala. The institute said that life without parole for children so young "is cruel and unusual" and violates the Constitution.
The group says roughly six dozen people in 18 states are under life sentences and ineligible for parole for crimes they committed at 13 or 14.
Kuntrell Jackson was sentenced to life in prison in Arkansas after the shooting death of a store clerk during an attempted robbery in 1999. Another boy shot the clerk, but because Jackson was present he was convicted of capital murder and aggravated robbery.
Evan Miller was convicted of capital murder during the course of arson. A neighbor, while doing drugs and drinking with Miller and a 16-year-old boy, attacked Miller. Intoxicated, Miller and his friend beat the man and set fire to his home, killing the 52-year-old man. Miller's friend testified against him, and got life in prison with the possibility of parole. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Court reluctant on plea bargains after sentencing
Court Watch |
2011/11/02 10:15
|
The Supreme Court seemed reluctant Monday to allow criminals to ask for a previously offered plea bargain after they've been sentenced, despite the inmates' claim of misconduct by their lawyers including neglecting to tell their clients that a deal had been offered.
Asking judges to go back and figure out on appeal whether a suspect would have taken a plea deal before a trial, whether a judge would have accepted it, whether a prosecutor would have withdrawn it or whether the negotiations would have fallen apart "is simply unworkable," said Justice Anthony Kennedy, who is often a tiebreaker votes on divisive issues.
The high court heard appeals from two different sets of prosecutors who had their cases overturned by appeals courts that said criminals were denied their Sixth Amendment effective "assistance of counsel" because of mistakes during plea negotiations. The Supreme Court has amplified that by saying that "counsel's representation must not fall below an objective standard of reasonableness" and that there must not be "a reasonable probability that, but for counsel's unprofessional errors, the result of the proceedings would have been different."
In the first case, Anthony Cooper's conviction for shooting a woman in the thigh and buttocks after missing a shot to her head was overturned by the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati because his lawyer gave him bad advice. His lawyer told him not to take a plea offer that could have had him out of prison in four years, thinking that there could not be a finding that Cooper intended to murder his victim. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
SF court to hear appeal by Tucson rampage suspect
Court Watch |
2011/11/01 03:14
|
A federal appeals court will hear arguments Tuesday on requests from attorneys for the Tucson, Ariz., shooting rampage suspect to halt their mentally ill client's forced medication with psychotropic drugs and rescind his stay at a Missouri prison facility.
Jared Lee Loughner's lawyers have asked the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to end their client's commitment at the prison in Springfield, Mo., where mental health experts are trying to make him psychologically fit to stand trial.
Loughner has been treated for his mental illness in Missouri after U.S. District Judge Larry Burns in May declared him mentally unfit to stand trial.
However, Burns ruled in late September that it's probable the 23-year-old can be made fit for trial, and ordered that Loughner's four-month stay in Missouri be extended by another four months.
Loughner has pleaded not guilty to 49 charges stemming from the Jan. 8 shooting in Tucson that killed six people and injured U.S. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords and 12 others.
Prosecutors asked the appeals court to reject the requests by Loughner's lawyers, saying Burns made the correct decision in extending Loughner's stay in Missouri.
Defense attorneys argued Loughner's forced medication to treat bipolar disorder has violated his rights and that there's no evidence he can be made mentally fit for trial in the next four months. They said even if Loughner can be made fit, his right to a fair trial could be violated because of the possible sedative effect of the drugs he's being forced to take. |
|
|
|
|
|
Legal News RSS Feed
