|
|
|
High court won't hear California's prison appeal
Legal Focuses |
2014/06/10 19:09
|
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. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Court gives OJ lawyers a week to resubmit appeal
Legal Focuses |
2014/06/03 18:59
|
O.J. Simpson's lawyers were given another week Friday to reformat and resubmit an appeal to the Nevada Supreme Court seeking a new trial in the kidnapping and armed robbery case of the former football star.
In the order, Chief Justice Mark Gibbons agreed to accept a supersized 20,000-word document that Simpson's lawyers had submitted before a May 21 deadline if it complies with court formatting rules.
"Basically they want it to be double-spaced," court spokesman Michael Sommermeyer said.
The document hasn't been made public, and the seven justices haven't decided whether to rehear oral arguments in case. The court rejected an initial appeal by Simpson in September 2010.
Simpson attorney Patricia Palm said she was glad the justices agreed to accept the 19,933 words she submitted nine days ago. The new deadline is June 6.
Palm noted the court frequently accepts briefs longer than its 14,000-word limit in complex cases.
Palm and Simpson appeal lawyers Ozzie Fumo and Tom Pitaro want the court to reconsider the contention that Simpson got bad legal advice, that his trial lawyer had a conflict of interest, and that Simpson's 2008 Las Vegas trial was tainted by his notoriety. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Court to hear dispute over state tax collection
Legal Focuses |
2014/05/30 20:01
|
The Supreme Court on Tuesday agreed to consider a dispute over how a state may tax the income that its residents earn in another state.
In a case that could affect how taxes are collected in every state, the justices will hear an appeal from Maryland officials who want to overturn a lower court ruling that found the state's tax law unconstitutional.
Maryland law allows residents to deduct income taxes paid to other states from their Maryland state tax. But it does not apply that deduction when it comes to a local "piggyback tax" the state collects for counties and some city governments.
Last year, the Maryland Court of Appeals said the tax violates the Constitution's Commerce Clause. The court said the law discourages Maryland residents from earning money outside the state.
Maryland Attorney General Douglas Gansler says the state has authority to tax all income of its residents, even income earned outside the state. He said the Court of Appeals' decision could cost local governments $45 million to $50 million annually and warned that Maryland might have to refund up to $120 million in taxes. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Iran judge summons Facebook CEO to court
Legal Focuses |
2014/05/27 20:28
|
A judge in southern Iran has ordered Facebook founder and CEO Mark Zuckerberg to appear in court to answer complaints by individuals who say Facebook-owned applications Instagram and Whatsapp violate their privacy, semiofficial news agency ISNA reported Tuesday.
It quoted Ruhollah Momen Nasab, an official with the paramilitary Basij force, as saying that the judge also ordered the two apps blocked. It is highly unlikely that Zuckerberg would appear in an Iranian court since there is no extradition treaty between Iran and the United States. Some Iranian courts have in recent years issued similar rulings that could not be carried out.
Another Iranian court last week had ordered Instagram blocked over privacy concerns. However, users in the capital, Tehran, still could access both applications around noon Tuesday. In Iran, websites and Internet applications have sometimes been reported blocked but remained operational.
Facebook is already officially banned in the country, along with other social websites like Twitter and YouTube as well as their mobile apps. However some senior leaders like Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif are active on Twitter, and many Iranians use proxy servers to access banned websites and applications.
While top officials have unfettered access to social media, Iran's youth and technology-savvy citizens use proxy servers or other workarounds to bypass the controls.
The administration of moderate President Hassan Rouhani is opposed to blocking such websites before authorities create local alternatives. Social media has offered a new way for him and his administration to reach out to the West as it negotiates with world powers over the country's contested nuclear program. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Supreme Court takes up case of fired air marshal
Legal Focuses |
2014/05/20 18:27
|
The Supreme Court agreed Monday to consider the case of a federal air marshal who was fired after leaking information to the press about aviation security plans.
The justices will hear an appeal from the Obama administration, which claims Robert MacLean is not entitled to whistleblower protection for disclosing that the Transportation Security Administration planned to save money by cutting back on overnight trips for undercover air marshals.
MacLean was fired in 2006, three years after he told a reporter the cuts were being made despite a briefing days earlier about an imminent terrorist threat focusing on long-distance flights. MacLean said he leaked the information after his boss ignored his safety concerns.
When news of the planned became public, congressional leaders expressed their concerns and the Department of Homeland Security acknowledged that the plan was a mistake. No flight assignments requiring overnight hotel stays were canceled.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ruled last year that MacLean should be allowed to present a defense under federal whistleblower laws. But the government argues that the law does not protect employees who reveal "sensitive" security information.
MacLean asserts that no law specifically prohibited him from revealing the information because it wasn't considered sensitive when it was shared with him. The agency's decision to curb the overnight trips was sent as a text to MacLean's cellphone without using more secure methods. He says the law protects government employees who report violations of the law or specific danger to public safety. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
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. |
| Lawyer & Law Firm Directory |
|
|
Law Firm PR News RSS
