|
|
|
Ginsburg Reverses FOIA Denial
Court Line News |
2008/06/16 07:45
|
An airplane enthusiast has the right to seek documents from the Federal Aviation Administration, though the lower court had denied his friend the same documents.
Greg Herrick was denied access to the documents, due to an exemption covering trade secrets. When his friend filed a similar lawsuit, the lower court said the lawsuit was precluded by the first ruling. The D.C. Circuit upheld, but Justice Ginsburg reversed, shooting down the Circuit's 5-point test for virtual representation.
Extending the preclusive effect of a judgment to a non-party runs up against the deep-rooted historic tradition that everyone should have his own day in court, Ginsburg wrote.
For a lawsuit to be precluded, the two parties must have pre-existing substantive legal relationship or one party must have assumed control over the previous litigation, according to the unanimous opinion. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Class Claims Steak House Knowingly Hires Illegals
Court Line News |
2008/06/11 07:46
|
Ruth's Chris Steak House systematically hired undocumented workers and lets them use the Social Security numbers of previous workers, and harassed and threatened a legal worker who complained of it, a RICO class action claims in Federal Court.
The lawsuit claims that after an INS sweep of Ruth's Chris Steak House in Birmingham, many undocumented workers returned wearing different name tags. It claims the restaurant hires undocumented workers on a large scale, pays them in cash, knowingly accepts I-9 immigration forms containing false information, and otherwise knowingly violates immigration and employment laws.
Plaintiffs also accuse Ruth's Chris of stealing 20% to 25% of its workers' tips. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Judge Removed From Office For Phone Rage
Court Line News |
2008/06/10 07:19
|
Niagara Falls City Judge Robert Restaino was removed from office in an apparent case of telephone rage. Frustrated that no one owned up to the cacophonous cell phone that rang in the back of his courtroom, Restaino sent 46 defendants to jail.
nbsp;nbsp; The New York Court of Appeals said removal was proper, because Restaino acted in a way that eroded confidence in his ability to render fair, rational judgments.
When the cell phone went off, Restaino told the defendants in his courtroom, Now, whoever owns the instrument that is ringing, bring it to me now or everybody could take a week in jail and please don't tell me I'm the only one that heard that.
After a fruitless inquiry to find the owner, he reiterated, Everyone is going to jail; every single person is going to jail in this courtroom unless I get that instrument now. If anybody believes I'm kidding, ask some of the folks that have been here for a while. You are all going.
He questioned the 35 remaining defendants and recalled 11 defendants whom he had previously released before the phone rang. Dissatisfied with their responses, he revoked their recognizance release and imposed bail. He even set bail for a petitioner who had been standing next to the judge when the phone rang in the back of the room.
He then ranted about the breach of courtroom decorum. You know, for some of you folks, this hurts me more than you imagine because someone in this courtroom has no consideration for you, no consideration for me and just doesn't care, he said. Some of you people may not be in the (same) economic situation (as) this selfish person ... (is who) put(s) their interests (sic) above everybody else's. They don't care what happens to anybody.
The 46 defendants were transported to the city jail, booked, searched and placed in holding cells. Thirty-two defendants posted bail, while the remaining 14 who could not post bail were shackled and bused to the county jail.
The state court said the circumstances qualified as truly egregious to merit removal from office. (I)t is ironic that petitioner displayed the very attributes by which he accused and summarily punished each defendant, the court added. Restaino had more than 46 chances to correct himself and failed to do so. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Black Public Defenders Sue Atlanta
Court Line News |
2008/06/05 07:51
|
In pursuit of greater diversity, the City of Atlanta laid off five black female public defenders who were better qualified and had more experience than the white men it retained, the women claim in Federal Court.
The women claim, the decision makers regarding the reduction in force laid off plaintiffs as part of an effort to achieve what they perceived as greater diversity in a department that had previously had primarily African American and female employees.
The woman want reinstatement, back pay, damages and costs, alleging racial and sexual discrimination. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
9th Circuit Halts Logging In Sierra Nevada Forest
Court Line News |
2008/05/15 07:39
|
The 9th Circuit has blocked the government's plan to log parts of the Sierra Nevada forest, rejecting the U.S. Forest Service's argument that it needs to cut and sell large trees in order to raise money for forest-fire prevention.
Sierra Forest Legacy and the state of California appealed the denial of an injunction against the Forest Service to ban the cutting of larger trees, in which several wildlife species thrive. Environmentalists claimed that the agency's plan to sell off trees to cover the costs of fire prevention failed to comply with the National Environmental Policy Act.
The Forest Service shirked its duty to rigorously explore and objectively evaluate all reasonable alternatives to logging in the Basin, Empire and Slapjack sites of the Sierra Nevada forests, plaintiffs claimed.
In one sale, a fire hazard can be removed and the USFS paid so that it can remove the fuel of future fires, Judge Noonan wrote, acknowledging the seeming practicality of the plan. Two for one always has an attractive ring. But are there no alternative ways of getting money to do the clearing that is imperative? Obviously, there may be.
Noonan suggested that the mere existence of a lumber-for-funds plan indicates that Congress needs to step in and provide more funding for forest fire prevention. Plaintiffs suggested other alternatives, including reprioritizing other funding and altering the Forest Service's fuel treatment program.
So long as the alternatives remain unexamined, the agency's plan violates federal law, Noonan wrote.
The court stressed that it was not deciding the merits of the case, but ruling that the government's choice of funding for fire reduction does not outweigh the state's preservation interests.
nbsp; |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Supreme Court rules magistrates may preside
Court Line News |
2008/05/15 07:36
|
pThe US Supreme Court ruled Monday in Gonzalez v. United States that allowing a magistrate judge to oversee jury selection does not deprive a criminal defendant of the right to a jury trial and complies with the Federal Magistrates Act. The holding affirmed a judgment of the US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit that defendant's counsel may waive the right to have an Article III judge preside over voir dire, and that it was not error to proceed without first getting the defendant's personal consent. Justice Kennedy announced the judgment of the Court; his opinion was joined by Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg, Breyer, and Alito. Justice Scalia filed an opinion concurring in the judgment, and Justice Thomas wrote a dissent. /ppIn affirming the Fifth Circuit ruling, Justice Kennedy wrote: /ppNumerous choices affecting conduct of the trial, including the objections to make, the witnesses to call, and the arguments to advance, depend not only upon what is permissible under the rules of evidence and procedure but also upon tactical considerations of the moment and the larger strategic plan for the trial. These matters can be difficult to explain to a layperson; and to require in all instances that they be approved by the client could risk compromising the efficiencies and fairness that the trial process is designed to promote.
In a separate concurrence, Justice Scalia agreed with the conclusion but not with the reasoning upon which it was based. He wrote: /ppI would not adopt the tactical-vs.-fundamental approach, which is vague and derives from nothing more substantial than this Court’s say-so./ppIn his dissent, Justice Thomas advocated overruling the precedents for the decision and wrote:
Where, as here, a mistaken interpretation of a statute leaves the Court with no principled way to answer subsequent questions that arise under the statute, it seems to me that the better course is simply to acknowledge and correct the error.
/p |
|
|
|
|
|
Legal News RSS Feed
