|
|
|
Nevada court hears casino mogul Adelson's defamation case
Headline Legal News |
2016/04/05 17:37
|
Nevada's highest court is being asked if a political group defamed casino mogul Sheldon Adelson in 2012 with an Internet ad alleging that he used prostitution-tainted money from casinos in China to fund Republican presidential campaigns in the United States.
A key question during Nevada Supreme Court oral arguments on Monday was whether online point-and-click "hyperlinks" are comparable to footnotes on a printed page — and whether they were enough to inform ad readers that Adelson denied the prostitution claim when it was made in a civil lawsuit.
"This Web page wasn't designed to be fair," Daniel Polsenberg, an attorney for Adelson, told the five justices hearing the case. "It states that Mr. Adelson approved of prostitution. That's not enough."
Lee Levine, attorney for the National Jewish Democratic Council, said hyperlinks are familiar to most Internet users, and as convenient for readers as footnotes and endnotes in books and articles.
The justices also heard related arguments about whether Nevada's anti-SLAPP law protected the council when criticizing one of the world's wealthiest men. The statute aims to prevent so-called strategic lawsuits against public participation.
Adelson accuses the Washington-based council and two of its executives of "assassinating" his character by falsely claiming that he personally approved illegal activities in Macau resorts owned by Sands China Limited, a subsidiary of Las Vegas Sands.
Adelson, CEO of Las Vegas Sands, denied the claims when they were made public as part of a wrongful termination lawsuit filed in Nevada state court by former Sands China executive Steven Jacobs. That case is not yet resolved.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Supreme Court will take up case about juror's racial bias
Areas of Focus |
2016/04/05 17:33
|
The Supreme Court agreed Monday to decide whether jurors' claims of racially charged comments by another juror can overcome the need for secrecy in jury deliberations.
The justices will hear an appeal from a Hispanic man in Colorado who says he did not have a fair trial because a juror made offensive comments about Mexicans.
The remarks came to light when two other jurors told the defendant's lawyer about them. Courts rarely allow jurors to reveal what went on during their deliberations.
But defendant Miguel Angel Pena Rodriguez argues that the comments were so bad they deprived him of his constitutional right to trial by an impartial jury.
The high court will hear the case in the fall. The NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund and the National Congress of American Indians are among the groups backing Pena Rodriguez. They provided the justices with examples of other trials in which jurors uttered slurs or made derogatory remarks about Native American, African-American and Hispanic defendants.
Colorado tried to dissuade the court from taking up the case by arguing there was overwhelming evidence against Pena Rodriguez and that no juror suggested that the offensive comments affected or persuaded anyone else.
After a jury convicted Pena Rodriguez of unlawful sexual contact and harassment involving teenage sisters at a Denver-area horse race track, two jurors provided his lawyer with sworn statements claiming that a third juror made derogatory remarks about Mexican men before voting guilty.
"I think he did it because he's Mexican and Mexican men take whatever they want," is one of several racially tinged statements attributed to the juror identified in court records by the initials H.C. In another comment, the juror is said to have cast doubt on an alibi provided by a Hispanic witness for Pena Rodriguez because the witness was "an illegal." The witness testified that he was in the country legally.
But three separate courts in Colorado said those statements could not be used to upend Pena Rodriguez's conviction because of a long-standing rule that prohibits jurors from testifying about what happens during deliberations. The rule, found in both federal and state law, is intended to promote the finality of verdicts and to shield jurors from outside influences. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Supreme Court Rejects Conservative Group’s Argument
Headline Legal News |
2016/04/05 17:32
|
A unanimous Supreme Court ruled Monday that states can count everyone, not just eligible voters, in deciding how to draw electoral districts.
The justices turned back a challenge from Texas voters that could have dramatically altered political district boundaries and disproportionately affected the nation’s growing Latino population.
The court ruled that Texas’ challenged state Senate districting map, using total population, complied with the principle of “one person, one vote,” the requirement laid out by the Supreme Court in 1964 that political districts be roughly equal in population.
A unanimous Supreme Court ruled Monday that states can count everyone, not just eligible voters, in deciding how to draw electoral districts.
The justices turned back a challenge from Texas voters that could have dramatically altered political district boundaries and disproportionately affected the nation’s growing Latino population.
The court ruled that Texas’ challenged state Senate districting map, using total population, complied with the principle of “one person, one vote,” the requirement laid out by the Supreme Court in 1964 that political districts be roughly equal in population.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Court upholds total population count in electoral districts
Court Watch |
2016/04/04 17:33
|
A unanimous Supreme Court ruled Monday that states can count everyone, not just eligible voters, in deciding how to draw electoral districts.
The justices turned back a challenge from Texas voters that could have dramatically altered political district boundaries and disproportionately affected the nation's growing Latino population.
The court ruled that Texas' challenged state Senate districting map, using total population, complied with the principle of "one person, one vote," the requirement laid out by the Supreme Court in 1964 that political districts be roughly equal in population.
The issue, though, was what population to consider: everyone or just eligible voters.
The challengers said the districts had vastly different numbers when looking at eligible voters, in violation of the Constitution.
"Jurisdictions, we hold, may design state and local legislative districts with equal total populations; they are not obliged to equalize voter populations," Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said, summarizing her opinion for the court.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
California court mulls whether employers must offer seating
Attorney News |
2016/04/04 17:32
|
California's Supreme Court is set to clarify the state's rules for determining when employers must provide workers with a place to sit.
The court's opinion, expected Monday, stems from lawsuits brought by cashiers at the CVS drugstore chain and tellers at Chase Bank who said they were wrongly not provided with seats while working. The companies face millions of dollars in potential penalties depending on the California Supreme Court's interpretation of the rules. The court's opinion would affect other similar cases in the state.
Employers in California must provide employees with "suitable seats" when the nature of the employees' work reasonably permits the use of seats.
The CVS and Chase Bank lawsuits are now before the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. That court asked the California Supreme Court to determine whether each task employees perform must be evaluated to determine whether it qualifies for a seat. The 9th Circuit also asked whether the employer's judgment about whether the employee should stand and the physical layout of the workplace must be taken into consideration.
CVS and Chase Bank say the seat rules require a holistic approach that determines the nature of employees' work by considering the entire range of tasks they perform, according to the 9th Circuit.
In CVS' case, cashiers also stock shelves and perform other tasks that require them to stand. The companies also say the employees' job descriptions, the layout of the workplace and the business' judgment about whether employees should stand must be considered, according to the 9th Circuit.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Supreme Court's future hangs in the balance in 2016
Legal Topics |
2016/04/01 17:34
|
Hillary Clinton said Monday that the future of the Supreme Court would hang in the balance of the 2016 election, warning that Republican front-runner Donald Trump would bring division to the court if he was allowed to shape its future.
Clinton said Trump would roll back the rights of individuals and further empower corporations, pointing to his past statements about building a wall along the Mexican border and barring all non-citizen Muslims from entering the United States.
"In a single term, the Supreme Court could demolish pillars of the progressive movement," Clinton said at the University of Wisconsin. She pointed to the possibility of a Trump presidency, asking, "What kind of justice will a President Trump appoint?"
Clinton opened a two-day campaign trip in Wisconsin ahead of the state's April 5 primary with a topic certain to unite Democrats whether they support her or Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders: President Barack Obama's nomination of Judge Merrick Garland.
Republicans have said the late Justice Antonin Scalia should not be replaced until the next president picks a nominee. But Clinton argued it was reminiscent of GOP-led gridlock that stymied Obama's two terms.
"We chose a president. We chose him twice," Clinton said. "And now Republicans in the Senate are acting like our votes didn't count and President Obama is not still our nation's leader."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clinton: Americans should put Court nomination at forefront
Legal Topics |
2016/03/28 16:23
|
Hillary Clinton wants voters to consider what Republican front-runner Donald Trump might do to shape the Supreme Court.
Clinton planned to use in a speech in Madison, Wisconsin, on Monday to argue that Trump could roll back the rights of individuals, further empower corporations and undo some of the nation's progress.
Clinton was campaigning in Wisconsin ahead of the state's April 5 primary and speaking Monday at the University of Wisconsin about President Barack Obama's nomination of Judge Merrick Garland.
Clinton holds a large lead among delegates against Democratic rival Bernie Sanders but is trying to stamp out the Vermont senator's momentum following his victories in five of the last six states holding contests.
Clinton's campaign said ahead of the speech that the Democratic presidential candidate would call on Senate Judiciary Chairman Charles Grassley of Iowa to commit to giving Garland a hearing. Grassley and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., have said that the late Justice Antonin Scalia should not be replaced until the next president picks a nominee.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Headline Legal News for You to Reach America's Best Legal Professionals. The latest legal news and information - Law Firm, Lawyer and Legal Professional news in the Media. |
|
|
