|
|
|
High court won't hear California's prison appeal
Court News |
2014/06/10 12:33
|
The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday let stand a lower court ruling that California bears responsibility for nearly 2,000 disabled parolees housed in county jails.
The decision could leave state taxpayers liable for problems at some of the jails, said Jeffrey Callison, a spokesman for the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation.
The high court did not comment as it declined to consider Gov. Jerry Brown's appeal of a January 2012 decision by U.S. District Judge Claudia Wilken in Oakland.
She ruled that state prison officials failed to monitor and protect former inmates who were returned to county jails instead of state prisons for parole violations under a now 3-year-old state law.
That law keeps most parole violators and lower-level offenders in county jails instead of state prisons in response to federal court orders requiring the state to reduce the prison population.
The ruling in the parolee case was upheld last year by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, despite objections by the state.
"We believe that the lower court impinged upon a state's right to delegate responsibilities to local governments," Callison said.
The state penal code says parole violators in county jails are under counties' jurisdiction, he said, but "the federal court decided that didn't matter, that they were still ultimately state parolees."
That could make the state financially responsible for providing jailed parolees with the accommodations to which they are entitled under the federal Americans with Disabilities Act, he said. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
DiRusso & DiRusso - Surry County Worker's Compensation Lawyers
Attorney News |
2014/06/10 12:33
|
From the moment an employee is injured, there are time limits for both the employee and employer. Employers must make certain reports to the court system for North Carolina Worker's Compensation case, Industrial Commission. Employer reports do not satisfy the reporting obligations of the employee or extend the time limit for the employee to make his claim.
Under certain circumstances, an injured employee may report their injury to their employer and even be paid for time missed from work. If the employee does not make the proper filing with the Industrial Commssion, the employee's claim can be dismissed and they will receive no further benefits.
It is critical to know what benefits to demand. An injured worker is entitled to numerous benefits, unfortunately it is not the employer's obligation to advise their injured employee of these benefits. At DiRusso & DiRusso, we offer free consultations with attorneys who practice Worker's Compensation.
If you're in need of a <a href="http://www.dirussolaw.com/practice-areas/workers-compensation">Surry County Worker's Compensation Lawyer</a>, contact DiRusso & DiRusso today.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
High Court Refuses to Block Oregon Gay Marriage
Court News |
2014/06/06 14:50
|
The U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday refused to halt same-sex weddings in Oregon while a federal appeals court considers whether a group opposed to gay marriage can intervene in the case.
The order follows an emergency appeal by the National Organization for Marriage, which seeks to overturn U.S. District Judge Michael McShane's May 19 ruling that declared Oregon's same-sex marriage ban unconstitutional. The group had unsuccessfully tried to intervene in the lower court proceeding after Oregon Attorney General Ellen Rosenblum declined to defend the same-sex ban.
The group filed its request with Justice Anthony Kennedy and he referred it to the full court. The justices denied it without comment.
Hundreds of same-sex couples have obtained marriage licenses since McShane's order, including 245 in Multnomah County, the state's largest.
The Oregon case differs from others where the Supreme Court or federal appeals judges have temporarily blocked lower-court rulings, halting same-sex unions while appeals proceed.
In Oregon, the appeal is focused on whether an outside group can intervene in the case, not on the constitutionality of the same-sex marriage ban, so it raises a different set of legal questions.
Lawyers for the attorney general's office have said they won't appeal McShane's ruling and are fighting the National Organization for Marriage's appeal in the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
Rosenblum, the attorney general, said there were no legal arguments she could offer in defense of the marriage ban that would be consistent with decisions last year by the U.S. Supreme Court and with state laws.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Levin & Curlett, LLC - Baltimore Criminal Defense Lawyer Services
Attorney News |
2014/06/06 14:47
|
Levin & Curlett, LLC was formed by former prosecutors. With extensive experience in all facets of criminal and civil litigation, Levin & Curlett LLC has the trial experience necessary to work effectively with clients to achieve their goals. They represent clients who are involved in criminal proceedings as targets, subjects, witnesses, recipients of grand jury subpoenas, or defendants.
Levin & Curlett LLC defends state and federal charges for all manner of non-white collar crimes, including felonies and misdemeanors. We have extensive experience in cases involving:
- Conspiracy
- Racketeering (RICO)
- Homicide
- Sex Crimes
- Assault
- Theft/Embezzlement
- Driving Under the Influence/Driving While Impaired
- Weapons Possession
- Narcotics Possession and Trafficking
- Cases Involving Juveniles
If you're in need of Baltimore Criminal Defense Lawyers, call the Levin Curlett, LLC today. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Court: Company didn't induce patent infringement
Press Release |
2014/06/03 12:34
|
A unanimous Supreme Court ruled Monday that a company is not liable for inducing patent infringement if someone other than the company carries out some of the steps leading to infringement.
The justices unanimously ruled Monday that Internet content delivery company Limelight Networks Inc. did not infringe on the patented system for managing images and video owned by rival Akamai Technologies Inc.
Akamai claimed Limelight used some of its patented methods for speeding content delivery, and then illegally encouraged its customers to carry out the remaining steps. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit agreed, but the Supreme Court reversed.
Justice Samuel Alito said all the steps for patent infringement must be performed by a single party. Since there was no direct infringement, Alito said there could be no inducement.
The case drew interest from tech giants including Google and Oracle, which have been sued frequently by so-called "patent trolls," companies that buy patents and force businesses to pay license fees or face costly litigation. They had urged the high court to overturn the Federal Circuit in order to limit the growing number of patent infringement lawsuits.
In another patent case Monday, the high court also ruled unanimously that a medical device company's patent on a heart-rate monitor used with exercise equipment was too ambiguous to pass muster. Biosig Instruments had sued competitor Nautilus Inc., for allegedly infringing its monitor's design. |
|
|
|
|
|
Legal News RSS Feed
