|
|
|
Appeals court upholds key voting rights provision
Legal Focuses |
2012/05/19 05:43
|
A federal appeals court on Friday upheld a key provision of the Voting Rights Act, rejecting an Alabama county's challenge to the landmark civil rights law.
The provision requires state, county and local governments with a history of discrimination to obtain advance approval from the Justice Department, or from a federal court in Washington, for any changes to election procedures. It now applies to all or parts of 16 states.
In a 2-1 decision, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit said that Congress developed extensive evidence of continuing racial discrimination just six years ago and reached a reasonable conclusion when it reauthorized section 5 of the law at that time.
The appellate ruling could clear the way for the case to be appealed to the Supreme Court where Chief Justice John Roberts suggested in a 2009 opinion that the court's conservative majority might be receptive to a challenge to section 5.
Judge David Tatel wrote for the Court of Appeals majority that the court owes deference to Congress' judgment on the matter. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Court rules NY town's prayer violated Constitution
Legal Focuses |
2012/05/18 05:43
|
An upstate New York town violated the constitutional ban against favoring one religion over another by opening nearly every meeting over an 11-year span with prayers that stressed Christianity, a federal court of appeals ruled Thursday.
In what it said was its first case testing the constitutionally mandated separation of church and state, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit ruled the town of Greece, a suburb of Rochester, should have made a greater effort to invite people from other faiths to open monthly meetings. The town's lawyer says it will appeal.
From 1999 through 2007, and again from January 2009 through June 2010, every meeting was opened with a Christian-oriented invocation. In 2008, after residents Susan Galloway and Linda Stephens complained, four of 12 meetings were opened by non-Christians, including a Jewish layman, a Wiccan priestess and the chairman of the local Baha'i congregation.
Galloway and Stephens sued and, in 2010, a lower court ruled there was no evidence the town had intentionally excluded other faiths.
A town employee each month selected clerics or lay people by using a local published guide of churches. The guide did not include non-Christian denominations, however. The court found that religious institutions in the town of just under 100,000 people are primarily Christian, and even Galloway and Stephens testified they knew of no non-Christian places of worship there. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
High court weighs overtime pay for drug sales reps
Legal Focuses |
2012/04/17 17:51
|
A seemingly divided Supreme Court on Monday weighed a potentially costly challenge to the pharmaceutical industry's practice of not paying overtime to its sales representatives.
The justices questioned whether the federal law governing overtime pay should apply to the roughly 90,000 people who try to persuade doctors to prescribe certain drugs to their patients.
Many sales jobs are exempt from overtime pay under the Fair Labor Standards Act. But unlike typical salespeople who often work on commission, pharmaceutical sales representatives cannot seal a deal with doctors. Federal law, in fact, forbids any binding agreement by a doctor to prescribe a specific drug.
Two salesmen who once worked for drug maker GlaxoSmithKline filed a class-action lawsuit claiming that they were not paid for the 10 to 20 hours they worked each week on average outside the normal business day. Their jobs required them to meet with doctors in their offices, but also to attend conventions, dinners, even golf outings.
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg was among several justices who wondered about limits on overtime opportunities if the court were to rule for the sales reps. A court filing by the industry said drug companies could be on the hook for billions of dollars in past overtime. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Court: Rights don't have to be read to prisoners
Legal Focuses |
2012/02/21 18:07
|
The Supreme Court said Tuesday investigators don't have to read Miranda rights to inmates during jailhouse interrogations about crimes unrelated to their current incarceration.
The high court, on a 6-3 vote, overturned a federal appeals court decision throwing out prison inmate Randall Lee Fields' conviction, saying Fields was not in "custody" as defined by Miranda and therefore did not have to have his rights read to him.
"Imprisonment alone is not enough to create a custodial situation within the meaning of Miranda," Justice Samuel Alito wrote in the court's majority opinion.
Three justices, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor, dissented and said the court's decision would limit the rights of prisoners.
"Today, for people already in prison, the court finds it adequate for the police to say: 'You are free to terminate this interrogation and return to your cell,'" Ginsburg said in her dissent. "Such a statement is no substitute for one ensuring that an individual is aware of his rights."
Miranda rights come from a 1966 decision that involved police questioning of Ernesto Miranda in a rape and kidnapping case in Phoenix. It required officers to tell suspects they have the right to remain silent and to have a lawyer represent them, even if they can't afford one.
Previous court rulings have required Miranda warnings before police interrogations for people who are in custody, which is defined as when a reasonable person would think he cannot end the questioning and leave. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
NY appeals court orders NJ programmer's acquittal
Legal Focuses |
2012/02/17 19:04
|
A federal appeals court on Friday reversed the conviction of a former Goldman Sachs programmer on charges he stole computer code, ordering an acquittal in a case that tested the boundaries of what can be considered a crime as companies seek to protect their intellectual property from competitors.
The unusually speedy mandate from the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Manhattan will result in freedom for Sergey Aleynikov, of North Caldwell, N.J. He has been in prison since he was sentenced in March to more than eight years in prison. He was convicted in December 2010 of stealing trade secrets and transporting stolen property in interstate and foreign commerce.
A three-judge appeals panel heard arguments on Thursday, but the judges gave no indication that they would reverse the lower court hours later with a terse, one-paragraph order. The 2nd Circuit said it would issue a written ruling "in due course" to explain its decision.
Aleynikov's attorney, Kevin Marino, said he spoke with his client Friday. He said Aleynikov reacted by concluding: "There is justice in the world."
"I could not be happier," Marino said. "It's justice because Sergey Aleynikov did not commit either of the crimes with which he was charged. The government's attempt to stretch this criminal federal statute beyond all recognition resulted in a grave injustice that put Sergey Aleynikov in prison for a year."
In arguments before the 2nd Circuit on Thursday, Marino called it "ridiculous" and "preposterous" that his client was facing eight years in prison because he was found to have information that was not a product that Goldman Sachs sold in interstate and foreign commerce. A prosecutor had asked the court to uphold the conviction, saying protection of trade secrets was the only way companies could retain their technological advantages. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
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
