Law Firm PR News
Today's Legal News Bookmark Web Site
High court could block 'light' cigarettes lawsuit
Court Watch | 2008/10/07 14:12

The Supreme Court picked up Monday where it left off last term, signaling support for efforts to block lawsuits against tobacco companies over deceptive marketing of "light" cigarettes.

The first day of the court's new term, which is set in law as the first Monday in October, included denials of hundreds of appeals. Chief Justice John Roberts opened the new session in a crowded courtroom that included retired Justice Sandra Day O'Connor.

Last term, the justices handed down several opinions that limited state regulation of business in favor of federal power. Several justices posed skeptical questions in this term's first case, whether federal law prevents smokers from using consumer protection laws to go after tobacco companies for their marketing of "light" and "low tar" cigarettes.

The companies are facing dozens of such lawsuits across the country.

The federal cigarette labeling law bars states from regulating any aspect of cigarette advertising that involves smoking and health.

"How do you tell it's deceptive or not if you don't look at what the relationship is between smoking and health?," Chief Justice John Roberts said during oral arguments on the case.

Three Maine residents sued Altria Group Inc. and its Philip Morris USA Inc. subsidiary under the state's law against unfair marketing practices. The class-action claim represents all smokers of Marlboro Lights or Cambridge Lights cigarettes, both made by Philip Morris.

The lawsuit argues that the company knew for decades that smokers of light cigarettes compensate for the lower levels of tar and nicotine by taking longer puffs and compensating in other ways.

A federal district court threw out the lawsuit, but the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said it could go forward.

The role of the Federal Trade Commission could be important in the outcome. The FTC is only now proposing to change rules that for years condoned the use of "light" and "low tar" in advertising the cigarettes, despite evidence that smokers were getting a product as dangerous as regular cigarettes.



J.K. Rowling Smites Copyright Violator
Court Watch | 2008/09/09 14:02

J.K. Rowling vanquished the forces of darkness Monday when a federaljudge permanently enjoined RDR Books from publishing "The Harry PotterLexicon," a guidebook to Rowling's best-selling series. U.S. DistrictJudge Robert Patterson Jr. blocked also ordered RDR to pay $6,750 instatutory damages.

Steven Jan Vander Ark, a librarian andHarry Potter fan, thus cannot publish his guide to Rowling's series,for which he said there was a considerable demand. Warner Bros., whichmade the Harry Potter movies, joined Rowling in suing for copyrightviolations.

The ruling came 5 months after a 4-day trial,during which Rowling described the "Lexicon" as "wholesale theft of 17years of my hard work."

The next day at trial, Vander Ark sobbed on the stand, clearly upset that he had annoyed Rowling.

Judge Patterson found that RDR Books "failed to establish its affirmative defense of fair use."


Ninth Circuit rules on 'no-fly' list
Court Watch | 2008/08/20 14:07

The US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled Monday that those placed on the government's "no-fly list" can challenge their inclusion on the list in federal district courts. The issue came before the court in a case brought by a woman on the list, in which a district court had ruled that it lacked jurisdiction because of a law exempting Transportation Security Administration orders from federal trial court review. Reversing the decision, the Ninth Circuit held that the Terrorist Screening Center which actually maintains the list is a subsection of the Federal Bureau of Investigation and is therefore subject to review by the district courts:
Our interpretation of section 46110 is consistent not merely with the statutory language but with common sense as well. Just how would an appellate court review the agency’s decision to put a particular name on the list? There was no hearing before an administrative law judge; there was no notice-and comment procedure. For all we know, there is no administrative record of any sort for us to review. So if any court is going to review the government’s decision to put Ibrahim’s name on the No-Fly List, it makes sense that it be a court with the ability to take evidence.
The court also held that the woman could not bring two related claims because they were “inescapably intertwined” with TSA orders. The San Francisco Chronicle has more.

In July, the US terror watchlist, which includes the no-fly list, was criticized by the American Civil Liberties Union for being too large, containing inaccuracies, and lacking safeguards to prevent the unnecessary targeting of passengers for additional security screenings. In March, the US Department of Justice Office of the Inspector General issued a report saying that FBI had submitted inaccurate information to the list, that the information was rarely reviewed before its submission, and even if discrepancies become apparent they were often left unchanged. In response to the audit, FBI Assistant Director John Miller said that the agency was working with the DOJ and other partner agencies to "ensure the proper balance between national security protection and the need for accurate, efficient, and streamlined watchlist processes."


Second Circuit Protects Plaintiff's Anonymity
Court Watch | 2008/08/18 15:27

A woman who filed a lawsuit for physical and sexual assault should be allowed to remain anonymous, the 2nd Circuit ruled in a question of first impression.

Judge Cabranes found that the district court improperly dismissed the plaintiff's case due to her refusal to give her name.

While plaintiffs usually must state their names to give the opposition a chance to mount a defense, Cabranes ruled that the district court stuck to the letter of the law without considering whether plaintiff had a legitimate need to keep her identity hidden.

"The district court did not balance the plaintiff's interest in proceeding anonymously against the interests of the defendants and the public," Cabranes wrote.


9th Circ. upholds denial of Oregon domestic partnership
Court Watch | 2008/08/15 14:12

The US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled on Thursday that Oregon Secretary of State Bill Bradbury did not violate the constitutional rights of voters who signed a petition to hold a referendum on a state law establishing same-sex domestic partnerships. Bradbury struck over 200 signatures from the petition after officials found that many of the signatures did not match those on voter registration cards. He then announced that the petition was approximately 100 signatures short of the required number. Voters were not permitted to contest the decision by introducing extrinsic evidence, and so signators brought suit, alleging violations of due process and equal protection guarantees. The Ninth Circuit held that any burden placed on the plaintiffs' fundamental right to vote was minimal and held that there had been no constitutional violations:
The Secretary’s procedures already allow chief petitioners and members of the public to observe the signature verification process and challenge decisions by county elections officials. The value of additional procedural safeguards therefore is negligible, and the burden on plaintiffs’ interests from the state’s failure to adopt their proposed procedures is slight at most.
Plaintiffs had unsuccessfully asserted that Oregon was required to provide them with an opportunity to "rehabilitate" the stricken signatures, and also argued that the lack of uniform statewide rules for verifying referendum signatures violated Bush v. Gore.

The US District Court for the District of Oregon ruled in February that the domestic partnership law should be allowed to take effect after it was suspended last December. Oregon Governor Ted Kulongoski signed the bill into law last May after it was passed by the Oregon House and the Oregon Senate. The law would have taken effect on January 1 of this year had there been no lawsuit.


[PREV] [1] ..[54][55][56][57][58][59][60][61][62].. [63] [NEXT]
   Law Firm PR News Menu
All
Legal Focuses
Legal PR
Attorney News
Court Line
Court Watch
Legal News
Law Firm Topics
   Law Firm & Attorney Directory
Law Firm PR News provides the most current career information of legal professionals and is the top source for law firms and attorneys.
   Recent Entries
New justice formally joins V..
New Orleans judges seek revi..
Attorneys: Court seat puts M..
Cock-a-doodle-doo! French ro..
‘The Supreme Court Is Not W..
Brazil court overrules Rio m..
Louisiana high court rejects..
Appeal in John Steinbeck law..
Puerto Ricans get their 3rd ..
Puerto Ricans await court de..
Gunmaker asks US Supreme Cou..
Activist loses UK court case..
Democratic governor getting ..
Cyprus police frees 5 Israel..
Supreme Court: Trump can use..
   Lawyer & Law Firm Directory
Canton Criminal Lawyer
Canton DUI lawyer
www.cantoncriminalattorney.com
Connecticut Special Education Lawyer
www.fortelawgroup.com
Chicago Work Accident Lawyer
Chicago Workplace Injury Attorneys
www.krol-law.com
Surry County Criminal Defense Lawyers
Yadkin County Family Law Attorneys
www.dirussolaw.com
Bankruptcy Attorney Eugene
Eugene Bankruptcy Attorney
www.willamettevalleybankruptcy.com
Oregon DUI Law Attorney
Eugene DUI Lawyer. Criminal Defense Law
www.mjmlawoffice.com
St. Louis Missouri Criminal Defense Lawyer
St. Charles DUI Attorney
www.lynchlawonline.com
San Francisco Trademark Lawyer
San Francisco Copyright Lawyer
www.onulawfirm.com
Santa Ana Workers' Compensation Lawyers
www.gentryashtonlaw.com
Houston Car Accident Attorneys
Wrongful Death Attorneys Houston
Houston Wrongful Death
New York Adoption Lawyers
New York Foster Care Lawyers
Adoption Pre-Certification
www.lawrsm.com
 
© Marking Agency For Law FirmsLaw Firm News Media. All rights reserved.

The content contained on the web site has been prepared by Law Firm News as a service to the internet community and is not intended to constitute legal advice or a substitute for consultation with a licensed legal professional in a particular case or circumstance. Law Firm Website Design