|
|
|
Palm Beach Construction Law
Law Firm News |
2014/11/07 11:11
|
Our Principal, Mr. Heitman, has extensive experience with both the law and construction. He is both a Florida Licensed Professional Engineer, as well as a Certified Construction Attorney. This puts him in the unique position to lead on both the jobsite, courtroom, and boardroom.
Much like you on your jobsite, we do everything to legal code and correct the first time. We will be straightforward with you about your case and inform you on all your options. We will not cut corners, paying careful attention to every aspect of your case, from the contracts to the construction disputes. Also like you, we think that no project is too big or too small to be given our utmost attention. We want to make you, your project, and your company is given thorough legal representation.
Heitman Law Firm serves it's clients by first comprehending the specific issues our clients face and then tailoring our representation to those specific needs. Construction law cases often involve legal,technical, engineering, design, constructability and scheduling issues. We speak the language of construction. We understand your business. We know how to read a set of plans. Our client service is based on the idea that the client should not be required to pay to bring us up to speed on the construction issues. Instead, we make it our business to be ahead of the learning curve.
Heitman Law Firm has the technical knowledge to understand the issues you face and the legal acumen to address these issues. With construction law, the cases are often multi-faceted and multidisciplinary. We are well versed in construction, business, and law, resulting in attorneys that are up to speed. You need to spend your time teaching us about construction, because we are already familiar. Instead of getting caught up in jargon, we are able to keep up to speed with both your construction issues and the current laws. This keeps us ahead of the curve and far ahead other attorneys in Palm Beach.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Court seems to favor fired whistleblower
Attorney News |
2014/11/05 13:20
|
The Supreme Court on Tuesday seemed inclined to rule in favor of a former federal air marshal who wants whistleblower protection for leaking information about aviation security plans.
Several of the justices indicated during oral argument that Robert MacLean did not violate the law when he revealed to a reporter government plans to cut back on overnight trips for undercover air marshals despite a potential terror threat.
MacLean said he leaked the information to an MSNBC reporter after supervisors ignored his safety concerns. His revelations in 2003 triggered outrage in Congress and the Department of Homeland Security quickly decided not to make the cutbacks, acknowledging it was a mistake.
But MacLean was fired from the Transportation Security Administration three years later, after the government discovered he was the leaker.
A federal appeals court ruled last year that MacLean should be allowed to present a defense under federal whistleblower laws. The Obama administration argues that whistleblower laws contain a major exception — they do not protect employees who reveal information "prohibited by law."
Deputy Solicitor General Ian Gershengorn told the justices that TSA regulations specifically prohibit disclosure of "sensitive security information," including any information relating to air marshal deployments.
But several of the justices pointed out that the Whistleblower Protection Act refers only to other laws, not agency regulations.
"So it is prohibited by regulations, let's not play games," Justice Antonin Scalia told Gershengorn.
Justice Stephen Breyer suggested that since no law seemed to ban the kind of information MacLean leaked, the president could simply issue an executive order to keep TSA workers from disclosing that kind of information. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Southern California Personal Injury Lawyers
Law Firm News/California |
2014/11/04 15:04
|
Here at the Law Offices of Robert W. Jackson, APC, we are expert trial Lawyers with the ability to present and prepare your case professionally. This professionalism with prevent you and your attorney from being bullied by insurance companies.
Our objective is to secure fair compensation for your injuries, no
matter where that takes place. As trial lawyers, we are not scared to
go to court, and we will not convince you to take a small settlement
out of fear of a trial. We are unafraid of the insurance companies,
and we will fight till the end to get you what you deserve. Other
lawyers aim to get a settlement, and if that doesn't work they are
scared to go to trial. Often times, such attorneys will refer you to
experienced trial lawyers like us.
We at the Law Offices of Robert W. Jackson, APC understand that you
are going through a difficult time with your injury or auto accident.
The physical, financial, and emotional toll it takes on you can be
overwhelming. It is our goal to ease your burdens and help facilitate
resolution with insurance companies, opposing lawyers, medical
facilities, and government agencies. Conveniently located in Fallbrook
and Cardiff, California, we are poised to represent those throughout
San Diego County.
If you do not take the proper steps immediately, your claim for an
injury may be seriously degraded. Seek medical treatment for your
injuries and pain immediately, and then call us for a consultation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Court rejects appeal over Senate filibuster rules
Legal News |
2014/11/04 15:04
|
The Supreme Court on Monday rejected an appeal from a public interest group and four members of Congress who challenged the Senate filibuster as unconstitutional.
The justices let stand a lower court ruling that said Common Cause and the lawmakers did not have legal standing to pursue the case.
The plaintiffs argued that Senate rules requiring at least 60 votes to bring legislation to a vote violates the constitutional principle of majority rule. A federal appeals court said the lawsuit was filed against the wrong parties.
The case was brought against Vice President Joe Biden in his role as president of the Senate, and against the Senate's secretary, parliamentarian and sergeant at arms.
Common Cause says it can't sue the Senate directly because that is barred under the Constitution's Speech and Debate Clause.
Last year, the Senate voted to end use of the filibuster rule from blocking most presidential nominees. Democrats said they ended the rule out of frustration that Republicans were routinely using the tactic to block President Barack Obama's nominees for pivotal judgeships and other top jobs.
But 60 votes are still required to end filibusters against legislation. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Health overhaul's subsidies at Supreme Court
Court Line News |
2014/10/30 10:09
|
Supreme Court justices have their first chance this week to decide whether they have the appetite for another major fight over President Barack Obama's health care law.
Some of the same players who mounted the first failed effort to kill the law altogether now want the justices to rule that subsidies that help millions of low- and middle-income people afford their premiums under the law are illegal.
The challengers are appealing a unanimous ruling of a three-judge panel of the federal appeals court in Richmond, Virginia, that upheld Internal Revenue Service regulations that allow health-insurance tax credits under the Affordable Care Act for consumers in all 50 states. The appeal is on the agenda for the justices' private conference on Friday, and word of their action could come as early as Monday.
The fight over subsidies is part of a long-running political and legal campaign to overturn Obama's signature domestic legislation by Republicans and other opponents of the law. Republican candidates have relentlessly attacked Democrats who voted for it, and the partisanship has continued on the federal bench. Every judge who has voted to strike down the subsidies was appointed by a Republican president.
The appeal has arrived at the Supreme Court at a curious time; there is no conflicting appeals court ruling that the justices often say is a virtual requirement for them to take on an issue. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg cited that practice, for example, as a reason she and her colleagues decided not to take on the same-sex marriage issue. And in the gay marriage cases, both sides were urging the court to step in. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Personal Injury Lawyers Practicing Throughout Texas
Law Firm News |
2014/10/30 10:09
|
Our team of attorneys has extensive experience representing clients
from every part of Texas. The Salazar Law Firm not only gives personal attention to each client, but we also have the resources and technology to handle all types of cases. Many individuals do not know about their rights when it comes to the law, but we are here to help. For anything from a simple injury case to a highly complex legal issue, we will give you results. Call us today to be informed of your rights and to have your case reviewed.
You can be assured that your case will be seen and handled by each
member of our staff, which allows your case to be known by the whole
firm. This lets us be thorough and enables you to reach out to anyone
on our staff. We make ourselves available at all times, even if that
means answering your call after hours. Ultimately, the Salazar Law
Firm seeks to responsibly deliver quality service to Texans all over.
This means we have staff who can communicate in Spanish, Vietnamese,
and English.
Our office works best in casual attire, saving our suits for court and
client meetings. Working hard need not be dull. United by the desire
to produce the best outcome for our clients, our staff members are a
team of friends in addition to being co-workers. Our employees not
only get the job done, but also pursue hobbies and accomplishments
outside the office. Each person brings something unique to the table.
This kind of environment allows us to strive for business excellence
in all the work that we do.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legal News RSS Feed
