|
|
|
Fed court nixes NJ appeal in sports betting case
Attorney Opinions |
2013/09/18 14:54
|
A federal appeals court dealt another blow to New Jersey's efforts to legalize sports gambling Tuesday, upholding a ruling that the state's betting law conflicts with federal law and shouldn't be implemented.
The case was heard by a three-judge panel at the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Philadelphia, and the state could seek to have the case re-heard by the full appeals court. But Tuesday's ruling more likely means New Jersey's last chance to legalize sports gambling is to ask the U.S. Supreme Court to hear the case.
A spokesman for Gov. Chris Christie didn't immediately return a message seeking comment Tuesday, but in the past Christie has said he would go to the nation's highest court if necessary.
Voters passed a sports betting referendum in 2011, and last year New Jersey enacted a law that limited bets to the Atlantic City casinos and the state's horse racing tracks. Bets wouldn't be taken on games involving New Jersey colleges or college games played in the state. Christie said at the time that he hoped to grant sports betting licenses by early this year, but those plans were put on hold.
The NFL, NBA, NHL, Major League Baseball and the NCAA sued the state last year, and the NCAA moved several of its championship events out of New Jersey, though it later relented.
The leagues said the betting law could harm the sanctity of the games. In a court deposition, MLB commissioner Bud Selig said he was "appalled" by Christie's actions.
Attorneys for the state had attacked the 1992 federal Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act on several constitutional levels. They argued the law unfairly "grandfathered" Nevada, Oregon, Montana and Delaware, which each had some form of sports gambling at the time, and said the law violated state sovereignty and equal protection provisions and trampled the authority of state legislatures under the 10th Amendment. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Court: Texas can use existing voting maps in 2014
Headline Legal News |
2013/09/09 11:57
|
A federal court said Friday it will not delay Texas' primary elections and ordered the state to use political maps drawn by the Legislature — but only temporarily, while the judges sort out a complex and possibly precedent-setting lawsuit.
The three-judge panel in San Antonio gave both sides in the lawsuit over Texas' voting maps reason to claim victory. The court will not draw its own map for the 2014 elections, as civil rights groups wanted, but it also did not throw out the lawsuit completely, as Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott requested.
The court order, signed by all three judges, also allows the civil rights and minority groups to argue that all changes to Texas election law should be reviewed by federal authorities before they can be implemented. The Justice Department has sought to intervene in the case after a recent Supreme Court decision requiring Congress to make changes to the Voting Rights Act.
The fundamental issue of the lawsuit, filed in 2011, is whether the Legislature illegally drew political maps that intentionally diminish the voting power of minorities in Texas. Abbott's office has argued in court papers that Republicans who control the Legislature drew maps to boost the chances of their party — which is legal — and that if minorities who vote predominantly Democratic are hurt as a result, that does not constitute a civil rights violation. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Committee OKs school spending report for WA court
Press Release |
2013/09/03 19:44
|
A committee overseeing progress on paying the full cost of basic education for kids in public school voted unanimously Tuesday to approve a draft of its latest progress report to the state Supreme Court.
In its decision on a lawsuit brought by a coalition of school districts, parents and education groups _ known as the McCleary case for the family named in the suit _ the high court ruled in January 2012 that the state is not meeting its constitutional obligation concerning education funding. In the ruling, the Supreme Court ordered the Legislature to make yearly progress reports on its efforts. Those reports are then critiqued by the group that brought the lawsuit, and by the Supreme Court.
This year, the Legislature allocated about $1 billion more for basic education for the current two-year budget cycle. Lawmakers estimate they need to find a total of between $3.5 billion to $4.5 billion more over the coming years to fully pay for basic education. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Judge denies motions in WVU media rights laws
Court Line News |
2013/08/27 00:15
|
A judge has denied several motions to dismiss West Virginia Radio Corp.'s lawsuit over how West Virginia University awarded a media rights contract for sporting events.
Judge Thomas Evans on Monday rejected requests by WVU Board of Governors, the WVU Foundation and other parties to dismiss the lawsuit in Monongalia County Circuit Court. The motions were based on arguments that West Virginia Radio had failed to make a case for fraud and a violation of public procurement laws. Evans ruled these are important public policy matters and need to be heard.
The network wants Evans to stop WVU from finalizing a 12-year contract with North Carolina-based IMG College.
The judge also is hearing arguments on West Virginia Radio's motion to block the deal and reset the clock to June. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Virginia Military Divorce Attorney - Tenecia P. Reid
Attorney News |
2013/08/21 14:00
|
The Law Office of Tenecia P. Reid will support you through your military divorce. These types of divorces are especially complicated and Ms. Reid is ready to guide you through this specialized issue such as determining jurisdiction and dividing disposable military retired pay. Many divorce attorneys have general family law experience, but they do not have an in depth understanding of the laws that specifically affect you, such as the Uniformed Services Former Spouses’ Protection Act (USFSPA) and the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act (SCRA).
If you are a servicemember or servicemember’s spouse, you probably recognize the complex nature of military divorce. The Law Office of Tenecia P. Reid is equipped to explain and guide you through these dense, specialized issues, such as determining jurisdiction and dividing disposable military retired pay.
With many years representing military divorce cases, The Law Office of Tenecia P. Reid is the legal help you can depend on. Call today for a consultation so we can discuss your options.
http://www.tpreidlaw.com/practice-areas/military-divorce |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Court: Right-to-work law applies to state workers
Court Line News |
2013/08/19 14:07
|
Michigan's right-to-work law applies to 35,000 state employees, a divided state appeals court ruled Thursday in the first major legal decision on the much-debated measure eight months after it passed.
Judges voted 2-1 to reject a lawsuit filed by unionized workers who make up more than two-thirds of all state employees. In a state with a heavier presence of organized labor than most, thousands of protesters came to the Capitol late last year as the Republican-backed measure won quick approval in a lame-duck session.
The law prohibits forcing public and private workers in Michigan to pay union dues or fees as a condition of employment, and applies to labor contracts extended or renewed after late March. It went to court after questions were raised whether it can affect state employees, since the Michigan Civil Service Commission, which sets compensation for state employees, has separate powers under the state constitution.
The court's majority said legislators have broad authority to pass laws dealing with conditions of "all" employment while the panel has narrow power to regulate conditions of civil service employment.
"In light of the First Amendment rights at stake, the Michigan Legislature has made the policy decision to settle the matter by giving all employees the right to choose," Judges Henry Saad and Pat Donofrio wrote, adding that legislators decided to "remove politics from public employment and to end all inquiry or debate about how public sector union fees are spent."
Dissenting Judge Elizabeth Gleicher said the court's decision strips the civil service panel of its "regulatory supremacy" clearly laid out in the constitution, which allows the four-member commission to regulate "all conditions of employment" for civil service workers. |
|
|
|
|
|
Legal News RSS Feed
