Gun law in sights of US Supreme Court
Legal Topics | 2008/03/18 18:07
Advocates of gun rights and opponents of gun violence demonstrated outside the Supreme Court Tuesday while inside, justices heard arguments over the meaning of the Second Amendment's "right to keep and bear arms."

Dozens of protesters mingled with tourists and waved signs saying "Ban the Washington elitists, not our guns" or "The NRA helps criminals and terrorist buy guns."

Members of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence chanted "guns kill" as followers of the Second Amendment Sisters and Maryland Shall Issue.Org shouted "more guns, less crime."

A line to get into the court for the historic arguments began forming two days earlier and extended more than a block by early Tuesday.

The high court's first extensive examination of the Second Amendment since 1939 grew out of challenge to the District of Columbia's ban on ownership of handguns.

Anise Jenkins, president of a coalition called Stand Up for Democracy in D.C., defended the district's 32-year-old ban on handgun ownership.



Judges Bar Law on Violent Video Games
Areas of Focus | 2008/03/18 18:05
A federal appeals court has upheld an injunction against a Minnesota law that would have kept children under 17 from renting or buying violent video games.

A three-judge panel of the 8th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals said Minnesota has a compelling interest in the psychological health of children.

But the judges wrote that the state didn't have enough proof that violent video games cause psychological harm and agreed with a lower-court judge that Minnesota went too far when it passed the law two years ago.

Under the law, kids under 17 would have faced a $25 fine if they rented or bought a video game rated "M" for mature or "AO" for adults only. The law also would have required stores to put up signs warning of the fines.



Supreme Court to Hear Indecency Case
Legal Topics | 2008/03/18 08:07
The U.S. Supreme Court has stepped into one of the biggest free speech fights of the past three decades, but it's unclear how far the court will go when it rules on just how much trouble broadcasters can get into for a slip of the tongue.

On Monday, the court agreed to hear arguments over the Federal Communications Commission's policy regarding so-called "fleeting expletives" in a closely watched case that will decide whether the government can fine or revoke a broadcaster's license because someone says a bad word. The case will be argued late this year.

Both News Corp., the Fox Broadcasting parent that wanted its victory in a lower court to stand, and the FCC, which pushed the Bush administration to appeal the case, applauded the justices' decision.

"The commission, Congress and most importantly parents understand that protecting our children is our greatest responsibility," FCC chairman Kevin Martin said.

Solicitor general Paul Clement, the Bush administration's top lawyer, urged the court to take the case, arguing that the appeals court decision had placed "the commission in an untenable position," powerless to stop the airing of expletives even when children are watching.

Fox said the move would "give us the opportunity to argue that the FCC's expanded enforcement of the indecency law is unconstitutional in today's diverse media marketplace, where parents have access to a variety of tools to monitor their children's television viewing."

The case surrounds two incidents in which celebrities used profanity during the Billboard Music Awards. In 2002, Cher told the audience: "People have been telling me I'm on the way out every year? So f--- 'em." The next year, Nicole Richie said: "Have you ever tried to get cow s--- out of a Prada purse? It's not so f---ing simple." (The Nielsen Co. owns Adweek and Billboard.)

Although the case concerns those utterances, it is grounded in a policy the commission developed after a 2004 incident in which U2's Bono said on NBC that winning a Golden Globe was "really, really f---ing brilliant." After that, the commission changed its long-standing policy and decided that some words are so inherently awful that broadcasters are liable even if the words come as a surprise. (NBC challenged the decision, but that case has yet to be resolved.)

The FCC found that Fox violated the Bono doctrine for the comments made by Cher and Richie, but the panel decided against issuing a fine because the shows aired before the commission altered the policy.

Fox, CBS, NBC and other broadcasters challenged the commission's decision, arguing that it chills free speech, threatens live programming and is unduly vague.


Heather loses court judgment appeal
Areas of Focus | 2008/03/18 08:07

Heather Mills has failed to stop publication of a divorce judgment highly critical of her as a witness and her financial claims against Sir Paul McCartney.

Mr Justice Bennett said her evidence was "not just inconsistent and inaccurate but also less than candid".

And he ended his ruling with a word of advice for anyone who puts forward "an excessive, indeed exorbitant, claim". They have only themselves to blame if the court awards much less than what they expected, he said.

Former model Miss Mills sought an award of almost £125 million but the judge decided she should leave her marriage to the former Beatle with a total of £24.3 million.

Mr Justice Bennett had released the financial details of his ruling on Monday but gave Miss Mills a chance to appeal his decision to release the full judgment.

Two appeal judges refused her request for permission to appeal and the judgment on her private divorce battle with Sir Paul became public.

The husband's evidence, said the judge, was balanced. "He expressed himself moderately though at times with justifiable irritation, if not anger. He was consistent, accurate and honest."

The judge continued: "But I regret to have to say I cannot say the same about the wife's evidence.

"Having watched and listened to her give evidence... I am driven to the conclusion that much of her evidence, both written and oral, was not just inconsistent and inaccurate but also less than candid. Overall she was a less than impressive witness."

Mr Justice Bennett said Miss Mills, who lost part of her leg in a road accident, was a "strong-willed and determined personality" who had shown great fortitude in overcoming her disability. He added that she was a "kindly person" who is devoted to her charitable causes.



Court Will Decide Wash. Shooting Case
Areas of Focus | 2008/03/18 00:00
The Supreme Court agreed Monday to consider reinstating the murder conviction of the driver in a gang-related drive-by shooting that horrified Seattle in 1994.

The court will hear arguments in the fall in the case of Cesar Sarausad II. He was convicted for his role as the driver in the shooting in which Melissa Fernandes, 16, was killed and Brent Mason, 17, was wounded outside a Seattle high school on March 23, 1994.

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco overturned the conviction because of faulty jury instructions.

In his instructions to the jury, Judge Larry A. Jordan said Sarausad could be convicted of murder regardless of whether he knew of any plan for a killing. The appeals panel ruled that the jury should have been told Sarausad could be convicted of murder only if he knew what was being planned.

The state of Washington asked the Supreme Court to reinstate the conviction, which had been upheld by state appeals courts.



Court to Take Up Voting Rights Suit
Areas of Focus | 2008/03/17 23:59

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Supreme Court said on Monday it would decide a potentially important voting rights case and whether crime lab reports can be used as trial evidence without the testimony of analysts who prepared them.

In a case from North Carolina, the high court agreed to decide whether the federal voting-rights law applied to districts where a racial minority group constituted less than half the population.

The federal voting-rights law, first adopted in 1965 and considered a landmark in civil rights legislation, is designed to protect the rights of minorities.

In the case, the state of North Carolina appealed and said the issue had been left unresolved by the Supreme Court in five previous opinions over a 20-year period through 2006.

Attorneys for the state said the case likely would be the last opportunity for the Supreme Court to decide the issue before the redrawing of legislative boundaries that will occur after the 2010 Census.

The case involved a district for the North Carolina House of Representatives in which black voters make up less than 50 percent of the population but still have been numerous enough to elect a black candidate in the past, with limited support from white voters.

The district was redrawn and reduced the population of blacks over voting age to 39 percent. The North Carolina Supreme Court ruled the voting rights law does not apply to districts where a minority group accounted for less than half the population.



Court upholds ban on Minnesota video game law
Legal Topics | 2008/03/17 23:59
A federal appeals court on Monday upheld an injunction against a Minnesota law that targeted at children under 17 who rent or buy violent video games.

A three-judge panel of the 8th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals agreed with a lower-court judge that Minnesota went too far when it passed its law two years ago because the state couldn't prove that such games hurt children.

The law would have hit kids under 17 with a $25 fine if they rented or bought a video game rated "M" for mature or "AO" for adults only. It also would have required stores to put up signs warning of the fines.

Game makers and retailers swiftly challenged the law, arguing it was an unconstitutional restriction of free speech. U.S. District Judge James Rosenbaum ruled in their favor in July 2006.

But the appellate opinion, written by Judge Roger l. Wollman, showed the judges weren't entirely happy about it.

"Whatever our intuitive (dare we say commonsense) feelings regarding the effect" of violent video games, precedent requires undeniable proof that such violence causes psychological dysfunction, Wollman wrote.

"The requirement of such a high level of proof may reflect a refined estrangement from reality, but apply it we must," he wrote.



[PREV] [1] ..[290][291][292][293][294][295][296][297][298].. [301] [NEXT]
All
Headline Legal News
Legal Topics
Legal Business
Attorney News
Court News
Court Watch
Areas of Focus
Legal Interview
Opinions
Court fight likely in 10-year-old..
'Magic' campaign lands 17 black w..
Ginsburg, 85, hospitalized after ..
Justice Beth Clement leading Supr..
Malaysia court to resume Kim Jong..
Bahrain opposition leader sentenc..
Heated congressional, court races..
Supreme Court agrees to hear Mary..
Bomb suspect set for Florida cour..
N Carolina justices to take case ..
Condemned inmate's last meal incl..
Synagogue suspect at courthouse; ..
North Carolina top court orders s..
Trump Foundation lawsuit paused u..
Virginia top court to hear 'unres..
Poland: Top court judges return f..
EU court orders Poland to reinsta..
Court to hear case over ID of Tex..
Maldives court overturns prison t..
Supreme Court hopeful had DWI cha..




Santa Ana Workers' Compensation Lawyers
www.gentryashtonlaw.com
Chicago Truck Drivers Lawyer
Chicago Workers' Comp Attorneys
www.krol-law.com
New Rochelle Accidents Attorneys
New Rochelle Personal Injury
www.kboattorneys.com
Indianapolis, IN Personal Injury Law Firm
Indian Personal Injury Attorneys
www.rwp-law.com
Downtown Manhattan Business Law Attorneys
Breach of Contract Lawyers
www.woodslaw.com
San Francisco Trademark Lawyer
San Francisco Copyright Lawyer
www.onulawfirm.com
Lorain Elyria Divorce Lawyer
www.loraindivorceattorney.com
Chicago Business Law Attorney
Corporate Litigation Attorneys
www.rothlawgroup.com
Surry County Criminal Defense Lawyers
Yadkin County Family Law Attorneys
www.dirussolaw.com
Connecticut Special Education Lawyer
www.fortelawgroup.com
Law Firm Web Design Templates
Lawyer Website Templates
www.webpromo.com
   Legal Resource
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.
 
 
 
Copyright © ClickTheLaw.com. All Rights Reserved. Legal Marketing Blog. The content contained on the web site has been prepared by Click The Law. as a service to the internet community and is not intended to constitute legal advice or a substitute for consultation with a licensed legal professional in a particular case or circumstance. By using the www.clickthelaw.com you agree to be bound by these Terms & Conditions.

Law Firm Web Design by Lawyer Website Design - Lawyer Web Site Design That Works