Group seeks appellate action on gays in military

Headline Legal News 2011/09/01 09:45   Bookmark and Share
The military's ban on openly gay troops will be lifted within weeks, but the policy can still be re-enacted in the future.

That's why a Republican gay rights organization that sued the Obama administration to stop enforcement of the policy says it will ask the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on Thursday to declare the nearly 18-year-old law unconstitutional, affirming a lower court's ruling last year.

With several Republican presidential candidates, including Rep. Michele Bachmann, indicating they would favor reinstating the ban if elected, such a ruling is needed, said Dan Woods, the attorney for the Log Cabin Republicans. Declaring the law unconstitutional would also provide a legal path for thousands discharged under the policy to seek reinstatement, back pay or other compensation for having their careers cut short, Woods said.

"The repeal of 'don't ask, don't tell' doesn't say anything about the future," Woods said. "It doesn't (explicitly) say homosexuals can serve. A new Congress or new president could come back and reinstitute it. We need our case to survive so there is a constraint on the government to prevent it from doing this again."

During her campaign stop in Iowa in August, Bachmann told interviewer Candy Crowley on CNN's "State of The Union" when asked whether she would reinstitute the law: "It worked very well and I would be in consultation with our commanders, but I think, yes, I probably would."

Justice Department attorneys have filed a motion asking the appeals court to dismiss the case, arguing that the repeal process that will lift the ban Sept. 20 makes the lawsuit irrelevant.

The Log Cabin Republicans successfully won an injunction by U.S. District Judge Virginia Phillips last year that halted enforcement of "don't ask, don't tell" briefly, before the 9th Circuit reinstated it.

top

2 law firms in Louisiana and Mississippi to merge

Law Firm News 2011/08/31 08:42   Bookmark and Share
A New Orleans-based law firm is expanding into Mississippi as it merges with a firm based in Jackson.

The New Orleans firm is Jones, Walker, Waechter, Poitevent, Carrere & Denegre L.L.P.

It is combining with Watkins Ludlam Winter & Stennis, P.A., a firm that includes former Mississippi Gov. William Winter.

The firms say in a news release Tuesday that the merger should be complete by Jan. 1, and the combined firm will have 375 attorneys.

It will go by the current name of the New Orleans firm, Jones Walker.

After the merger is complete, Jones Walker will have 15 offices in Louisiana, Alabama, Arizona, Florida, Mississippi, Texas and the District of Columbia.


top

A Court Cannot Exclude Evidence Because It Is Self-Serving

Legal Marketing 2011/08/31 08:41   Bookmark and Share
In Reed v. City of Evansville, _ N.E.2d _ (Ind. Ct. App. 2011), Cause No. 82A05-1012-PL-768, Evansville sought to have some of the evidence the Reeds submitted in opposition to the City's motion for summary judgment because it was "self-serving." Today, the Court of Appeals clearly stated that parties should not make this same objection in the future.

The Reeds filed a claim against Evansville and Evansville moved for summary judgment, arguing that the notice was not timely under the Tort Claims Act. The trial court granted that motion and the Reeds appealed.

On appeal, the Court held that the trial court erred when granting summary judgment to the City, because there were genuine issues of material fact. The court then addressed the City's cross-appeal, which challenged the trial court's denial of the City's motion to strike some of the Reeds' evidence. The City moved to strike some of that evidence because it was "self-serving." The Court had none of it.

http://www.indianalawupdate.com/entry/A-Court-Cannot-Exclude-Evidence-Because-It-Is-Self-Serving


top

Court to hear appeal over medicating Loughner

Court News 2011/08/30 09:29   Bookmark and Share
A federal appeals court will hear arguments Tuesday over a request to permanently ban prison officials from forcibly medicating the Tucson shooting rampage suspect with psychotropic drugs.

At issue in Jared Lee Loughner's appeal before the 9th Circuit Court of Appeal is whether prison officials or a judge should decide whether a mentally ill person who poses a danger in prison should be forcibly medicated.

Prosecutors say the decision is for prison officials to make, while Loughner's lawyers say it's up to a judge.

Loughner has pleaded not guilty to 49 charges in the Jan. 8 shooting that killed six people and wounded 13 others, including Rep. Gabrielle Giffords.

He has been at a federal prison facility in Springfield, Mo., since late May after mental health experts determined he suffers from schizophrenia and a judge ruled him mentally unfit to stand trial. He was sent to the facility in a bid to restore his mental competency so he can assist in his legal defense.

Loughner was forcibly medicated from June 21 to July 1 after prison doctors concluded that he was a danger. His attorneys appealed U.S. District Judge Larry Burns' ruling that said Loughner could be forcibly medicated in prison.





top

BofA sued over $1.75 billion mortgage trust

Court Watch 2011/08/30 09:29   Bookmark and Share
Bank of America Corp was sued by the trustee of a $1.75 billion mortgage pool, which seeks to force the largest bank to buy back all of the loans in the trust because of alleged misrepresentations.

The banking unit of US Bancorp said Countrywide Financial Corp, which issued the loans in the HarborView Mortgage Loan Trust 2005-10, breached its obligations by misrepresenting the quality of its underwriting and loan documentation.

It said that because of this material breach, Bank of America, which bought Countrywide in 2008, was obligated to buy back all the loans in the mortgage pool.

The lawsuit was filed in the New York State Supreme Court in Manhattan.





top

Shareholder Class Action Filed Against WebMD Health Corp.

Press Release 2011/08/30 09:28   Bookmark and Share
The following statement was issued today by the law firm of Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP:

Notice is hereby given that a class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of purchasers of the securities of WebMD Health Corp., who purchased or otherwise acquired WebMD securities between February 23, 2011 and July 15, 2011, inclusive (the "Class Period").  If you are a member of this class, you can view a copy of the Complaint or join this class action online at http://www.ktmc.com/cases/webmd/.

Members of the class may, not later than October 3, 2011, move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff of the class.  A lead plaintiff is a representative party that acts on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation.  In order to be appointed lead plaintiff, the Court must determine that the class member's claim is typical of the claims of other class members, and that the class member will adequately represent the class.  Your ability to share in any recovery is not, however, affected by the decision of whether or not to serve as a lead plaintiff.  Any member of the purported class may move the court to serve as lead plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or may choose to do nothing and remain an absent class member.  

If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions concerning this notice or your rights or interests with respect to these matters, please contact Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP (Darren J. Check, Esq. or David M. Promisloff, Esq.) toll free at 1-888-299-7706 or 1-610-667-7706, or via e-mail at info@ktmc.com.  For additional information about this lawsuit, or to join the class action online, please visit http://www.ktmc.com/cases/webmd/.






top









Disclaimer: Nothing posted on this blog is intended, nor should be construed, as legal advice. Blog postings and hosted comments are available for general educational purposes only and should not be used to assess a specific legal situation. Nothing submitted as a comment is confidential. Nor does any comment on a blog post create an attorney-client relationship. The presence of hyperlinks to other third-party websites does not imply that the firm endorses those websites.

Affordable Law Firm Website Design