The Nevada Supreme Court on Tuesday denied a request to block a judge's hearings into the health risks of a mentally impaired woman's pregnancy.
The court's unanimous ruling allowed Washoe County District Judge Egan Walker to resume the evidentiary hearings Tuesday morning in a case that has drawn the attention of national anti-abortion groups.
The 32-year-old woman's parental guardians asked the court Friday to halt the hearings, saying Walker lacks the authority to terminate the pregnancy of their daughter, who has the mental capacity of a 6-year-old.
They claim they have exclusive authority over her health care decisions, and they want their daughter to carry the baby to term in line with their Catholic religious beliefs.
But the high court sided with Walker, saying he has the authority to monitor the woman's welfare and hold the hearings.
Justices noted the guardians failed to file an annual report regarding their daughter's condition and their performance of duties as required by state law. They also said the court obtained information about concerns over the woman's medical condition.
"The purpose of the evidentiary hearings at this time is merely to obtain information in order to make well-reasoned and informed decisions regarding the ward's medical care," justices wrote. "Under these circumstances, we conclude that the district court has not exceeded its jurisdiction or arbitrarily or capriciously exercised its discretion."
Attorney Jason Guinasso, who represents the guardians, was tied up in Tuesday's hearing and unavailable for immediate comment, according to his secretary.
Guinasso has said he's aware of only one similar case in the country. It involved a Massachusetts judge who ordered a mentally ill 31-year-old woman to have an abortion and to be sterilized against her wishes. The state Appeals Court overturned the decision Jan. 17.
The Nevada couple said that while the pregnancy poses health risks to their daughter and the baby, medical experts back them in their decision to continue the pregnancy. The woman suffers from epilepsy and is on medication.
Thursday, November 8, 2012
Monday, June 18, 2012
Las Vegas Personal Injury Attorneys - Maier Gutierrez Ayon, PLLC
If you or a family member has been in an accident, we can help. If one of your employees was involved in an accident and your company is facing a lawsuit, we can help.
We have a track record of successfully litigating personal injury and product liability cases for our clients. We have significant experience with these types of cases, ranging from quick, favorable resolutions to taking cases all the way through trial and appeal.
Maier Gutierrez Ayon PLLC concentrates on personal injury and wrongful death. The group combines experience and sophistication in liability litigation law and can handle all aspects for their clients. Their significant experience with these type of cases range from quick, favorable resolutions to taking cases all the way through trial and appeal. Visit http://www.mgalaw.com/ for more information.
We have a track record of successfully litigating personal injury and product liability cases for our clients. We have significant experience with these types of cases, ranging from quick, favorable resolutions to taking cases all the way through trial and appeal.
Maier Gutierrez Ayon PLLC concentrates on personal injury and wrongful death. The group combines experience and sophistication in liability litigation law and can handle all aspects for their clients. Their significant experience with these type of cases range from quick, favorable resolutions to taking cases all the way through trial and appeal. Visit http://www.mgalaw.com/ for more information.
Florida Construction Law Attorney - Heitman Law Firm, PL.
Our law firm follows the same rules handling your case that you use on the jobsite to build your projects. Our work is Plumb Square and Level. When we say plumb, we mean that we are straight up with you. We evaluate your case and tell you where you stand legally, allowing you to make sound business decisions. Square means that we don’t cut corners in protecting our Client’s legal rights whether in drafting your contracts or handling your construction disputes.
By quality, we mean degree of excellence. Heitman Law Firm practices construction law. Mr. Heitman is an expert in construction law, board certified by the Florida Bar. He is a member of an elite group of board certified construction attorneys. In addition, Mr. Heitman is a Florida Licensed Professional Engineer, with years of experience building real world construction projects. As such, the Firm is extremely well qualified to render its clients high quality legal representation.
Heitman Law Firm has the background, training, and experience to handle every aspect of a construction project. With years of experience, Mr. Heitman has successfully drafted and negotiated multi-million dollar construction contracts and is committed to resolving construction claims on behalf of his clients. Visit
http://www.palmbeachconstructionlaw.org/ for more information.
By quality, we mean degree of excellence. Heitman Law Firm practices construction law. Mr. Heitman is an expert in construction law, board certified by the Florida Bar. He is a member of an elite group of board certified construction attorneys. In addition, Mr. Heitman is a Florida Licensed Professional Engineer, with years of experience building real world construction projects. As such, the Firm is extremely well qualified to render its clients high quality legal representation.
Heitman Law Firm has the background, training, and experience to handle every aspect of a construction project. With years of experience, Mr. Heitman has successfully drafted and negotiated multi-million dollar construction contracts and is committed to resolving construction claims on behalf of his clients. Visit
http://www.palmbeachconstructionlaw.org/ for more information.
Wednesday, June 13, 2012
Ex-DC Council chairman pleads guilty to 2 charges
The former chairman of the District of Columbia Council pleaded guilty Friday to lying about his income on bank loan applications, the latest blow to a city government rocked by scandal.
Kwame Brown also admitted to a misdemeanor campaign finance violation, capping a tumultuous week in which he forfeited his position as one of the city's most influential powerbrokers. His departure creates more turnover on the city's governing body and follows the resignation of another councilmember who admitted to stealing public funds earmarked for youth sports programs.
Their departures this year — coupled with a federal probe of Mayor Vincent Gray's 2010 campaign that has already produced guilty pleas from two campaign aides — have sent the district government into a tailspin. And the scandals likely aren't helping efforts to gain greater budget autonomy, much less win more voting power for the district's delegate to Congress or to secure the long-sought goal of statehood.
Kwame Brown also admitted to a misdemeanor campaign finance violation, capping a tumultuous week in which he forfeited his position as one of the city's most influential powerbrokers. His departure creates more turnover on the city's governing body and follows the resignation of another councilmember who admitted to stealing public funds earmarked for youth sports programs.
Their departures this year — coupled with a federal probe of Mayor Vincent Gray's 2010 campaign that has already produced guilty pleas from two campaign aides — have sent the district government into a tailspin. And the scandals likely aren't helping efforts to gain greater budget autonomy, much less win more voting power for the district's delegate to Congress or to secure the long-sought goal of statehood.
Monday, May 14, 2012
Supreme Court ratings down in Pew poll
A new survey finds the Supreme Court's popularity is at a 25-year low, though still much higher than that of Congress.
The Pew Research Center says 52 percent of Americans have a favorable opinion of the court, the lowest rating since the group started asking Americans their view of the high court in 1987.
Even at 52 percent, the court ranks well ahead of Congress. In a January poll, just 23 percent of Americans said they view Congress favorably.
The court's highest rating was in July 1994, when 80 percent of Americans reported holding a favorable view of it.
The poll on the court was conducted April 4-15 among a random national sample of 1,514 adults and has a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 2.9 percentage points.
The Pew Research Center says 52 percent of Americans have a favorable opinion of the court, the lowest rating since the group started asking Americans their view of the high court in 1987.
Even at 52 percent, the court ranks well ahead of Congress. In a January poll, just 23 percent of Americans said they view Congress favorably.
The court's highest rating was in July 1994, when 80 percent of Americans reported holding a favorable view of it.
The poll on the court was conducted April 4-15 among a random national sample of 1,514 adults and has a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 2.9 percentage points.
Monday, April 9, 2012
Izard Nobel LLP & Brower Piven Announce Summary Notice
The following statement is being issued by Izard Nobel LLP and Brower Piven, A Professional Corporation regarding the American Capital Class Action Settlement.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
WARD KLUGMANN, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. AMERICAN CAPITAL, LTD., MALON, WILKUS, JOHN R. ERICKSON, IRA WAGNER, SAMUEL A. FLAX, and RICHARD E. KONZMANN, Defendants. Civil Action No. 8:09-CV-00005-PJM
SUMMARY NOTICE OF PENDENCY OF PROPOSED
SETTLEMENT OF CLASS ACTION AND SETTLEMENT HEARING
TO: ALL PERSONS AND ENTITIES WHO PURCHASED SHARES OF THE PUBLICLY-TRADED COMMON STOCK OF AMERICAN CAPITAL, LTD. (THE “SHARES”) BETWEEN OCTOBER 31, 2007 AND NOVEMBER 7, 2008, INCLUSIVE.
You are hereby notified, pursuant to Court Order, that a hearing will be held on June 7, 2012, at 10:30 a.m., before the Honorable Peter J. Messitte, United States District Court Judge, United States District Court, District of Maryland, Courtroom 4C, 6500 Cherrywood Lane, Greenbelt, MD 20770 (the “Settlement Hearing”) to determine (1) whether the settlement of the Litigation in the amount of $18,000,000, plus any accrued interest thereon (the “Settlement”) should be approved as fair, reasonable, and adequate to the Settlement Class; (2) whether the proposed Plan of Allocation is fair, reasonable, and adequate; (3) whether the motion of Co-Lead Counsel for the Settlement Class (“Co-Lead Counsel”) for an award of attorneys’ fees, costs and expenses (the “Fee and Expense Motion”) and for an award to Plaintiffs relating to their representation of the Settlement Class (“Plaintiffs’ Expense Motion”) should be approved; and (4) whether the Litigation and the claims of the Members of the Settlement Class against Defendants should be dismissed on the merits and with prejudice as set forth in the Stipulation of Settlement (the “Settlement Stipulation”) filed with the Court.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
WARD KLUGMANN, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. AMERICAN CAPITAL, LTD., MALON, WILKUS, JOHN R. ERICKSON, IRA WAGNER, SAMUEL A. FLAX, and RICHARD E. KONZMANN, Defendants. Civil Action No. 8:09-CV-00005-PJM
SUMMARY NOTICE OF PENDENCY OF PROPOSED
SETTLEMENT OF CLASS ACTION AND SETTLEMENT HEARING
TO: ALL PERSONS AND ENTITIES WHO PURCHASED SHARES OF THE PUBLICLY-TRADED COMMON STOCK OF AMERICAN CAPITAL, LTD. (THE “SHARES”) BETWEEN OCTOBER 31, 2007 AND NOVEMBER 7, 2008, INCLUSIVE.
You are hereby notified, pursuant to Court Order, that a hearing will be held on June 7, 2012, at 10:30 a.m., before the Honorable Peter J. Messitte, United States District Court Judge, United States District Court, District of Maryland, Courtroom 4C, 6500 Cherrywood Lane, Greenbelt, MD 20770 (the “Settlement Hearing”) to determine (1) whether the settlement of the Litigation in the amount of $18,000,000, plus any accrued interest thereon (the “Settlement”) should be approved as fair, reasonable, and adequate to the Settlement Class; (2) whether the proposed Plan of Allocation is fair, reasonable, and adequate; (3) whether the motion of Co-Lead Counsel for the Settlement Class (“Co-Lead Counsel”) for an award of attorneys’ fees, costs and expenses (the “Fee and Expense Motion”) and for an award to Plaintiffs relating to their representation of the Settlement Class (“Plaintiffs’ Expense Motion”) should be approved; and (4) whether the Litigation and the claims of the Members of the Settlement Class against Defendants should be dismissed on the merits and with prejudice as set forth in the Stipulation of Settlement (the “Settlement Stipulation”) filed with the Court.
Tuesday, March 13, 2012
Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP Announces Class Action
Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP announces that a class action lawsuit
has been filed in the United States District Court, Northern District of
Alabama, on behalf of purchasers of the common stock of Walter Energy,
Inc. between April 20, 2011 and September 21, 2011, inclusive (the
“Class Period”), alleging violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934. Walter Energy produces and exports metallurgical coal for electric
utility and industrial customers in the United States.
The Complaint alleges that defendants misrepresented or failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company’s business and financial prospects, including that: (1) the Company was experiencing so-called “squeeze” events in Alabama and lower coal transportation rates in Canada that significantly reduced the Company’s coal production; (2) the Company’s commitment to ship more than 700,000 tons of coal in the second quarter, at first quarter sales prices, would result in a material adverse effect on Walter Energy’s second-quarter average sales prices and operating results; (3) the Company was experiencing a significant decline in its margins and profitability; and (4), based on the foregoing, defendants lacked a reasonable basis for their positive statements about the Company’s business and financial prospects during the Class Period.
No class has yet been certified in the above action. Until a class is certified, you are not represented by counsel unless you retain one. If you purchased Walter Energy common stock between April 20, 2011 and September 21, 2011, you have certain rights, and have until March 26, 2012 to move for lead plaintiff status.
www.glancylaw.com
The Complaint alleges that defendants misrepresented or failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company’s business and financial prospects, including that: (1) the Company was experiencing so-called “squeeze” events in Alabama and lower coal transportation rates in Canada that significantly reduced the Company’s coal production; (2) the Company’s commitment to ship more than 700,000 tons of coal in the second quarter, at first quarter sales prices, would result in a material adverse effect on Walter Energy’s second-quarter average sales prices and operating results; (3) the Company was experiencing a significant decline in its margins and profitability; and (4), based on the foregoing, defendants lacked a reasonable basis for their positive statements about the Company’s business and financial prospects during the Class Period.
No class has yet been certified in the above action. Until a class is certified, you are not represented by counsel unless you retain one. If you purchased Walter Energy common stock between April 20, 2011 and September 21, 2011, you have certain rights, and have until March 26, 2012 to move for lead plaintiff status.
www.glancylaw.com
Health care lawyer Clement as high court regular
Paul Clement used to argue for the federal government's power until he started arguing against it.
But he's no flip-flopping political candidate; he's a lawyer. Changes like this are part of his job.
Clement is playing a key role in three politically charged Supreme Court cases in which Republican-led states object to Obama administration policies or federal laws on health care, immigration and redrawing political boundaries.
In the biggest of those, the 45-year-old law school acquaintance of President Barack Obama will be trying to sink Obama's health care overhaul.
Not that long ago, Clement would regularly stand before the justices and defend even the most aggressive uses of federal power, making his case without written notes and parrying questions with an easy banter.
He argued for the Bush administration's policy on detaining suspected terrorists, a federal law outlawing a medical procedure called "partial-birth abortion" by opponents, the McCain-Feingold law aimed at limiting the influence of money in politics and a federal ban on the use of marijuana for medical purposes.
But he's no flip-flopping political candidate; he's a lawyer. Changes like this are part of his job.
Clement is playing a key role in three politically charged Supreme Court cases in which Republican-led states object to Obama administration policies or federal laws on health care, immigration and redrawing political boundaries.
In the biggest of those, the 45-year-old law school acquaintance of President Barack Obama will be trying to sink Obama's health care overhaul.
Not that long ago, Clement would regularly stand before the justices and defend even the most aggressive uses of federal power, making his case without written notes and parrying questions with an easy banter.
He argued for the Bush administration's policy on detaining suspected terrorists, a federal law outlawing a medical procedure called "partial-birth abortion" by opponents, the McCain-Feingold law aimed at limiting the influence of money in politics and a federal ban on the use of marijuana for medical purposes.
Las Vegas Product Liability Attorney - Luis A. Ayon
Las Vegas Product Liability Attorney
Luis has significant litigation experience in Nevada's state and federal courts. He focuses his practice on complex commercial litigation and contested and adversarial matters in bankruptcy court, real estate litigation and financial institutions litigation.
Prior to joining the firm, Luis was an associate at an international law firm where he focused on commercial litigation as well as contested bankruptcy matters. He also served as the first law clerk for Presiding Civil Judge, the Honorable Elizabeth Gonzalez and worked for one of the nation's largest plaintiffs' firms where he managed a significant case load involving catastrophic brain and spinal injuries, wrongful death, product liability and insurance bad faith claims.
Luis A. Ayon is commited to providing clients with the highest level of personal service. His dedication in his work focusing on all phases of litigation from obtaining fast pre-litigation results to handling cases through trial and appeal has given him extensive experience. His experience can rest assure that all cases will be handled by skilled professionals.Contact Maier Gutierrez Ayon PLLC.
Luis has significant litigation experience in Nevada's state and federal courts. He focuses his practice on complex commercial litigation and contested and adversarial matters in bankruptcy court, real estate litigation and financial institutions litigation.
Prior to joining the firm, Luis was an associate at an international law firm where he focused on commercial litigation as well as contested bankruptcy matters. He also served as the first law clerk for Presiding Civil Judge, the Honorable Elizabeth Gonzalez and worked for one of the nation's largest plaintiffs' firms where he managed a significant case load involving catastrophic brain and spinal injuries, wrongful death, product liability and insurance bad faith claims.
Luis A. Ayon is commited to providing clients with the highest level of personal service. His dedication in his work focusing on all phases of litigation from obtaining fast pre-litigation results to handling cases through trial and appeal has given him extensive experience. His experience can rest assure that all cases will be handled by skilled professionals.Contact Maier Gutierrez Ayon PLLC.
British court: Right-to-die case can proceed
In a case that challenges Britain's definition of murder, a severely
disabled man who says his life has no "privacy or dignity" will be
granted a hearing on his request that a doctor be allowed to give him a
lethal injection.
Tony Nicklinson suffered a paralyzing stroke in 2005 that left him unable to speak or move below his neck. The former rugby player and corporate manager requires constant care and communicates largely by blinking, although his mind has remained unaffected.
"I am fed up with my life and don't want to spend the next 20 years or so like this," Nicklinson said in a statement.
In January, Nicklinson asked the High Court to declare that any doctor who kills him with his consent will not be charged with murder. On Monday, a judge said the request may proceed, making it the first right-to-die case of its kind to get a hearing in a British court.
The 57-year-old's condition is stable, though Nicklinson has refused since 2007 to take any life-prolonging drugs recommended by doctors, including heart medication or blood thinners.
The ministry of justice argued that granting Nicklinson's request would require changing the law on murder and that such changes must be made by Parliament. The government had applied to have the case dismissed.
Tony Nicklinson suffered a paralyzing stroke in 2005 that left him unable to speak or move below his neck. The former rugby player and corporate manager requires constant care and communicates largely by blinking, although his mind has remained unaffected.
"I am fed up with my life and don't want to spend the next 20 years or so like this," Nicklinson said in a statement.
In January, Nicklinson asked the High Court to declare that any doctor who kills him with his consent will not be charged with murder. On Monday, a judge said the request may proceed, making it the first right-to-die case of its kind to get a hearing in a British court.
The 57-year-old's condition is stable, though Nicklinson has refused since 2007 to take any life-prolonging drugs recommended by doctors, including heart medication or blood thinners.
The ministry of justice argued that granting Nicklinson's request would require changing the law on murder and that such changes must be made by Parliament. The government had applied to have the case dismissed.
Court tosses jury award in Katrina jail lawsuit
A federal appeals court on Monday threw out a jury's award of more than
$650,000 to two Ohio tourists who were arrested in New Orleans on public
drunkenness charges two days before Hurricane Katrina's landfall and
jailed for more than a month after the storm.
A three-judge panel from the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that Orleans Parish Sheriff Marlin Gusman didn't falsely imprison Robie Waganfeald and Paul Kunkel Jr., both of Toledo.
The men's lawyers argued during an October 2010 trial that they were entitled by law to be released within 48 hours unless probable cause was found to keep them in custody. But the 5th Circuit judges concluded the 48-hour rule was suspended because of the 2005 storm.
"The undisputed evidence in this case compels the conclusion that Hurricane Katrina was a bona fide emergency within the meaning of the emergency exception to the 48-hour rule," Judge Jacques Wiener wrote. "Indeed, if Katrina was not an emergency, it is difficult to imagine any set of facts that would fit that description."
Gusman said the court ruling's "speaks eloquently."
"Our priority throughout the days and weeks surrounding Hurricane Katrina was the safe transfer of more than 6,000 inmates in an unprecedented movement that had never been attempted in the history of Orleans Parish or the state of Louisiana," Gusman said in a statement. "All of those inmates arrived at their destinations without a single fatality or serious injury. "
A three-judge panel from the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that Orleans Parish Sheriff Marlin Gusman didn't falsely imprison Robie Waganfeald and Paul Kunkel Jr., both of Toledo.
The men's lawyers argued during an October 2010 trial that they were entitled by law to be released within 48 hours unless probable cause was found to keep them in custody. But the 5th Circuit judges concluded the 48-hour rule was suspended because of the 2005 storm.
"The undisputed evidence in this case compels the conclusion that Hurricane Katrina was a bona fide emergency within the meaning of the emergency exception to the 48-hour rule," Judge Jacques Wiener wrote. "Indeed, if Katrina was not an emergency, it is difficult to imagine any set of facts that would fit that description."
Gusman said the court ruling's "speaks eloquently."
"Our priority throughout the days and weeks surrounding Hurricane Katrina was the safe transfer of more than 6,000 inmates in an unprecedented movement that had never been attempted in the history of Orleans Parish or the state of Louisiana," Gusman said in a statement. "All of those inmates arrived at their destinations without a single fatality or serious injury. "
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)