|
|
|
Court won't hear free speech challenge to metals dealers law
Attorney News |
2015/01/13 12:34
|
The Supreme Court won't consider the constitutionality of an Ohio law that bars precious metals dealers from advertising without a license.
The justices on Monday declined to take up an appeal from Liberty Coins, a gold and silver dealer that claims the law violates the free speech rights of businesses.
Ohio officials say the 1996 law was enacted to protect consumers from theft and help police track down stolen wedding rings, gold bracelets and other items resold at stores that buy gold and silver merchandise.
A federal judge in 2012 ruled the law unconstitutional because the state failed to prove the license requirement was effective in curbing theft, fraud and terrorism. But the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals reversed that ruling last year. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Woman at center of 1961 Supreme Court case dies
Attorney News |
2014/12/11 11:39
|
A woman who stood up to police trying to search her Ohio home in 1957 and ultimately won a landmark Supreme Court decision on searches and seizures has died.
Dollree Mapp died Oct. 31 in Conyers, Georgia. A relative and caretaker, Carolyn Mapp, confirmed her death Wednesday and said she died on the day after her birthday at the age of 91.
Mapp's Supreme Court case, Mapp v. Ohio, is a staple of law school textbooks and considered a milestone case on the Fourth Amendment, which requires law enforcement officers to get a warrant before conducting a search. The case curbed the power of police by saying evidence obtained by illegal searches and seizures could not be used in state court.
Mapp's path to the U.S. Supreme Court began on May 23, 1957, when three Cleveland police officers arrived at her home. There had just been a bombing at the home of Don King, who later became famous as a boxing promoter, and police believed that a person wanted for questioning was hiding in Mapp's home. The officers demanded to enter, but Mapp refused to let them in without a search warrant. More officers later arrived and police forced open a door, according to a summary of the case in the Supreme Court opinion.
When the officers confronted Mapp, one held up a piece of paper, claiming it was a warrant, and Mapp snatched it away. After a struggle an officer got the paper back, Mapp was handcuffed for being "belligerent," and officers searched her home. They didn't find the person they were looking for, but they did find some pornographic books and pictures. At the time, an Ohio law made having obscene material a crime, and Mapp was convicted, though she said the materials belonged to a former boarder. Prosecutors never produced a search warrant at trial.
Ultimately, the Supreme Court overturned Mapp's conviction in a 6-3 decision, ruling in 1961 that illegally obtained evidence could not be used in state court. The court had previously ruled that this was the case in federal court, but Mapp's case extended the "exclusionary rule" to states where the vast majority of criminal prosecutions take place, broadening the protection. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Supreme Court rejects blood transfusion case
Attorney News |
2014/12/01 15:44
|
The Supreme Court won't hear an appeal from the estate of a Michigan woman who died following a kidney transplant after turning down a blood transfusion because of her religious beliefs.
The justices on Monday let stand a state appeals court ruling that said the estate of Gwendolyn Rozier could not sue her doctors for negligence.
Rozier received a kidney from her daughter in a 2007 surgery but doctors later found that her body was rejecting the organ. She refused a blood transfusion, in keeping with the beliefs of Jehovah's Witnesses.
Rozier's estate accused the doctors of failing to timely recognize internal bleeding, among other allegations, which would have eliminated the need for a transfusion.
The Michigan appeals court said the transfusion was a necessary medical procedure under the circumstances. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
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. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Aggressive Securities Arbitration Services
Attorney News |
2014/10/22 14:16
|
Conway & Conway law firm, located in New York, are impassioned about
representing public customers and industry professionals all over the
world with a team of devoted futures, securities, and commodities
arbitration attorneys. Constantly keeping abreast of developing and
current regulatory reforms, U.S. securities laws, and other topics of
interest to professionals and investors, our firm is responsive and
agile. We are large enough to handle many cases and simultaneously
provide personalized service to each client for their futures,
securities, or commodities case.
Founded in 1988, Conway & Conway has been a successful New York City
securities arbitration law firm, yielding fantastic results in
securities arbitration cases from their 565 Fifth Avenue headquarters.
At Conway & Conway, the firm's attorneys have the know-how to deal
with litigation and business counseling. At all points of negotiation
and acquisition, along with wrongful termination and other corporate
matters, we have advocated on behalf of our corporate clients. In
addition to corporate clients, the firm works with commercial clients
in all types of commercial and business litigation as well.
In the financial services industry, Conway & Conway gives exceptional
legal counsel to the public. Whether its investors in dispute or
issues with registered representatives and other associates, they have
the high-caliber legal counsel to help. Fraud lawyers at the firm are
well-versed in all things concerning the laws that apply to the
securities and futures industries.
The commodity merchant attorneys at Conway & Conway provide litigation
and arbitration services for international commodity merchants related
to trade disputes. Their extensive trial experience, combined with a
unique familiarity with the commodities industry foreign exchange and
futures markets, enables Conway & Conway dedicated commodity
arbitration attorneys to resolve serious commodity trade disputes in a
timely and cost-effective manner.
For international commodity merchants, the commodity merchant
attorneys at Conway & Conway administer arbitration and litigation
services pertinent to trade disputes.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Court upholds most counts against ex-financier
Attorney News |
2014/09/03 14:02
|
A U.S. appeals court on Thursday upheld 10 convictions against an Indianapolis financier but overturned two wire fraud counts, saying the government failed to enter into the record key documentary evidence.
Timothy Durham and co-defendants Jim Cochran and Rick Snow were convicted in 2012 of swindling thousands of investors out of $200 million. Durham was convicted on 12 counts and sentenced to 50 years; Cochran was convicted on eight counts and sentenced to 25 years; Snow was convicted on five counts and sentenced to 10 years.
The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals in Chicago rejected most of the appeals but overturned two involving the transfer of $250,000 and $50,000.
The appeals court said the government's failure to enter the documentary evidence "was clearly an oversight, but the mistakes leaves a crucial gap in the evidence in those counts." It said the government used single-page printouts to establish the wire transfers were made in furtherance of the fraudulent scheme.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legal News RSS Feed
