|
|
|
Brother of murder victim attacks defendant in court
Court Line News |
2015/02/04 09:53
|
The brother of a murder victim has been arrested after authorities say he attacked his sister's killer in Onslow County court.
Authorities say 26-year-old Alfonso Law of Acworth, Georgia, has been charged with contempt of court, assault on a government official, simple assault, and disorderly conduct.
News outlets report that Law charged at 26-year-old Pernell Jones on Monday as Jones pleaded guilty to second-degree murder in the death of 15-year-old Anita Law.
After Jones admitted to killing the teenager, Law rushed at him and both men ended up on the floor before deputies pulled them apart,
Jones was sentenced to between 16 and 20 years in prison.
Alfonso Law goes before Judge Charles Henry on the contempt charge Thursday. It was not immediately known if he had an attorney.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Arizona sheriff could face civil contempt hearing in court
Court Line News |
2015/01/20 11:21
|
An Arizona sheriff could face a civil contempt hearing in federal court for his office's repeated violations of orders issued in a racial-profiling case.
U.S. District Judge Murray Snow held a telephonic conference Thursday and told Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio's attorneys that the six-term sheriff may face an April 21-24 hearing.
But a top lawyer with the Arizona chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union said Friday that Snow stopped short of officially ordering the hearing. The judge has given both sides until Jan. 23 to file additional paperwork.
At a Dec. 4 hearing, Snow sent strong signals that he intended to pursue contempt cases that could expose Arpaio to fines and perhaps jail time.
Lawyers for the sheriff didn't immediately return calls for comment on the possible civil contempt hearing.
Dan Pochoda, senior counsel for the Arizona ACLU, said Friday that Arpaio's office could face sanctions or fines for not following court orders and "fines to deter future bad acts and fines to compensate anyone permanently harmed" in the racial-profiling cases.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Indian court charges Uber driver with rape, kidnapping
Court Line News |
2015/01/13 12:33
|
A New Delhi court charged an Uber cab driver on Tuesday with rape, kidnapping and criminal intimidation in a case that has renewed a national fury over chronic sexual violence in India. Authorities are still investigating whether Uber should also be charged.
Judge Kaveri Baweja ordered the case to begin Thursday in a special fast-track court set up in 2013 to bypass India's lumbering judicial system.
The 32-year-old suspect, Shiv Kumar Yadav, entered a plea of innocence. He has been in custody since a 25-year-old woman filed a police complaint alleging he assaulted her after she hired him for a ride home on Dec. 5.
Authorities, meanwhile, were still investigating the possibility of criminal charges against the company for allegedly misrepresenting the safety of its service, police official Brijendra Kumar Yadav said.
"That is a separate case, and will take some time," he said, without giving details.
The case has appalled many in India, occurring almost exactly two years after a young woman was fatally gang raped on a bus in the capital. It has sparked new demands for better protections for women.
It also dealt a blow to Uber, which has attracted global praise and controversy with a service that lets passengers summon cars through an app in more than 250 cities around the world. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Houston Personal Injury Lawyers
Court Line News |
2014/12/08 14:03
|
An Employer in Texas is obligated to make sure your workplace is safe, that you have competent co-workers, and that you receive proper training and supervision, in addition to following other policies for your safety. Negligence on their watch may result in injuries, ranging from fall, burn, and crush injuries, to broken bones, amputation, and
death. Without proper protection from pinch points, machines, and the assistance of coworkers, you may be in danger. Other hazards include improper fall protection, ladders without safety cages, and poor housekeeping with tripping hazards.
Even if you are receiving workers’ compensation payments for your injuries, and you have been told you are barred by the workers’comp bar, you may still have a claim against a third party for creating or failing to remedy the hazard, such as a general contractor or
contractor, product manufacturer or safety consultant.
You may have a claim against a third party for making a hazard in your workplace, even if you are already receiving workers' compensation payments. Even if you have been told you are barred by the "workers' comp bar," a safety consultant or general contractor may be to blame.
You may have signed a pre-injury waiter, but there is change it is not enforceable. Call one of our personal injury lawyers in Houston, Texas to have questions answered or a case reviewed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Court grants Texas prisoner execution reprieve
Court Line News |
2014/12/05 15:08
|
A federal appeals court halted Wednesday's scheduled execution of a Texas killer whose attempt to subpoena Jesus Christ as a trial witness and other behavior led his attorneys to argue he is too mentally ill for capital punishment.
Scott Panetti, who was diagnosed with schizophrenia some 14 years before fatally shooting his estranged wife's parents in 1992, was granted the reprieve less than eight hours before he was set to receive a lethal injection. In stopping the execution, the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals acknowledged the legal complexity of putting a mentally ill inmate to death.
In a two-sentence ruling, the court said it needs time to "fully consider the late arriving and complex legal questions at issue in this matter" and that it will schedule briefings and hearings to consider arguments.
The Texas attorney general's office said it has no immediate plans to appeal and that state attorneys will present arguments to the 5th Circuit once the court sets a date for them.
Panetti's lawyers described him as delusional and argued that he was too mentally ill to qualify for capital punishment and they sought the delay so Panetti could undergo new competency examinations.
Panetti, who acted as his own trial lawyer, testified as an alternate personality he called "Sarge" to describe the slayings of Joe and Amanda Alvarado. He wore a purple cowboy outfit, including a big cowboy hat, during trial and largely ignored a standby attorney the judge appointed to assist him.
Appeals also were before the U.S. Supreme Court, which has said mentally ill people cannot be executed if they don't have a factual and rational understanding of why they're being punished. The high court took no action once the lower court stopped the punishment. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
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. |
|
|
|
|
|
Legal News RSS Feed
