|
|
|
Lawsuit: former officer involved in sex crime
Court News |
2009/10/26 09:34
|
WATERBURY, Conn. - A lawyer for a 17-year-old boy has fileda lawsuit against the city of Waterbury, claiming a now-retiredcity police officer handcuffed the teen during an attempted sexualassault in 2006.
The lawsuit was filed earlier this month and seeks unspecifieddamages. It accuses the city of negligent hiring and supervision offormer Officer Stephen Flanigan.
Flanigan could not be reached Monday. His home phone number isnot listed.
The boy told police that Flanigan handcuffed him during anattempted assault by Charles Fullenwiley at Fullenwiley'snow-defunct electronics store in Waterbury. Fullenwiley wassentenced last week to 40 years in prison for assaulting boys hetied up in his shop.
Flanigan has not been arrested, and an internal affairsinvestigation found the allegations unsubstantiated. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dolton police officers beat up innocent man, lawsuit claims
Headline Legal News |
2009/10/12 10:10
|
A federal lawsuit filed Friday accuses Dolton police officers of beating up an innocent man and lying about it.
The suit also alleges the Village of Dolton and its police department tried to cover up the crime.
David Smith's nose was broken and he had a concussion when he went to Ingalls Hospital after being released by Dolton police.
Smith, 29, was acquitted of disorderly conduct charges after prosecutors admitted an officer changed his story on the eve of trial, the suit says.
Among village and police officials named in the suit is Dolton Inspector General Bob Shaw, a candidate for Cook County assessor who said Friday he was not familiar with Smith's case. The lawsuit says Shaw "turned a blind eye to repeated instances of police misconduct."
Smith was arguing with a friend in the parking lot of Shark's restaurant on July 26 when officers slammed him on the hood of a squad car, punched him and threw him to the pavement, the lawsuit says.
Police handcuffed him and beat him, telling his friends to look away as they beat him, the lawsuit says. Someone called 911 to report police beating him, the lawsuit says. Police took a small bag of marijuana from a girl in Smith's group, the lawsuit says.
At the police station, Smith was thrown on a cell floor and lost consciousness, and his requests for medical attention were ignored, according to the lawsuit. Police ultimately charged him with possession of marijuana -- the bag taken from his friend, he said.
"I kept asking to be taken to the hospital, my nose was broken, and they didn't do anything," Smith said.
Police said Smith had struck himself on the cell door during processing. But doctors said his injuries could not have been caused by that.
Dolton police reportedly resisted turning over 911 tapes, videotapes of the lockup or police reports until they were ordered to release the items by a judge.
Read more... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
U.S. Sugar settles class action
Press Release |
2009/10/05 15:33
|
U.S. Sugar Corp. said Friday it has agreed to settle a class action lawsuit brought by shareholders and members of its Employee Stock Ownership Plan for an $8.4 million payment to members of the settlement class.
An additional payment of $7.5 million, less plaintiffs' attorneys’ fees, will be made if U.S. Sugar closes its pending land sale with the South Florida Water Management District, according to a news release.
The company said the settlement was filed with the U.S. District Court, Southern District of Florida.
Upon approval by the court, all actions against all defendants will be dismissed with prejudice, which means that the court ruling is final and the claims cannot be refiled.
This settlement was reached without any party admitting any liability.
"All of the defendants in this case have denied and continue to deny any wrongdoing, and indeed, most of the claims have already been dismissed by the court," said Robert Coker, U.S. Sugar’s senior vice president of public affairs.
In the settlement, U.S. Sugar said it entered into the settlement solely to avoid the cost, disruption and uncertainty of continued litigation.
Read more... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Court won't review Fla. Pledge of Allegiance law
Topics in Legal News |
2009/10/05 14:30
|
The Supreme Court has rejected an appeal to review a Florida law that requires public school students to recite the Pledge of Allegiance each day unless they have their parents' written permission excusing them. The justices declined Monday an appeal filed by the American Civil Liberties Union of Florida on behalf of a high school student removed from his math class because he remained seated during the pledge. A federal appeals court upheld most of the law. The ACLU said that ruling, if left undisturbed, would undermine the Supreme Court's 1943 ruling that schoolchildren could not be forced to salute the flag and say the pledge. Florida argued that the law, by giving parents the right to have their children excused, does not violate the First Amendment. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Conn. bishop says abuse is in church's past
Headline Legal News |
2009/10/05 14:29
|
The Supreme Court refused on Monday to block the release of documents generated by lawsuits against priests in Connecticut for alleged sexual abuse. The justices turned down a request by the Roman Catholic diocese in Bridgeport, Conn. Several newspapers are seeking the release of more than 12,000 pages from 23 lawsuits against six priests. The records have been under seal since the diocese settled the cases in 2001. Courts in Connecticut have ruled that the papers should be made public. The decision ends a legal battle that dragged on for years and could shed light on how recently retired New York Cardinal Edward Egan handled the allegations when he was Bridgeport bishop. It's unclear when the documents will be released. Waterbury Superior Court clerk Philip Groth said he needs to consult a judge to determine whether a hearing is necessary before the records are released. He said Monday morning it was unlikely the documents would be released Monday. The Bridgeport diocese, which had argued unsuccessfully that the documents were subject to religious privileges under the First Amendment, said it was disappointed in the decision. |
|
|
|
|
|
Legal News RSS Feed
