NY court: Gay marriage caucus didn't break rules

Court Watch 2012/07/06 15:33   Bookmark and Share
A state appeals court rejected a challenge to New York's year-old same-sex marriage law Friday, ruling closed-door negotiations among senators and gay marriage supporters including Gov. Andrew Cuomo did not violate any laws.

The Appellate Division of state Supreme Court in Rochester ruled against gay marriage opponents who argued that Republican state senators violated New York's open meeting rules ahead of the law's passage last year.

The marriage law was given final legislative approval by the state Senate after weeks of intensive lobbying and swiftly signed by Cuomo, making New York the largest state to legalize same-sex weddings. Same-sex couples began marrying by the hundreds on July 24, 2011, the day the law became official.

"The court's decision affirms that in our state, there is marriage equality for all, and with this decision New York continues to stand as a progressive leader for the nation," Cuomo said after the court's ruling.

New Yorkers for Constitutional Freedoms said Cuomo and another gay marriage supporter, New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, met behind closed doors with the Senate's Republican majority in violation of the open meeting law.
top

Court knocks down BASF, Shell Brazil payment

Topics in Legal News 2012/07/05 02:06   Bookmark and Share
Brazil's top labor court has knocked down a judge's order that Shell Brasil SA and BASF SA deposit $382 million into a fund for workers allegedly contaminated at a chemicals plant.

An emailed statement from the court Wednesday says its lead judge ruled a day earlier in favor of an appeal against immediate payment. A class-action lawsuit seeking compensation from the companies remains before the labor court.

A federal judge in late June ordered the subsidiaries of Royal Dutch Shell PLC and BASF SE to pay into the fund now. Prosecutors sought the order, saying the cash should be immediately available in case workers win the overall lawsuit.

Both Shell and BASF welcomed the new ruling and say they will abide by all legal decisions in the case.
 
top

Law Offices of Howard G. Smith Announces Class Action

Legal Business 2012/07/05 02:06   Bookmark and Share
Law Offices of Howard G. Smith announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed in the United States District Court for the District Court of the Virgin Islands on behalf of all persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired the common stock of Tibet Pharmaceuticals, Inc. pursuant and/or traceable to the Registration Statement and Prospectus issued in connection with the Company’s Initial Public Offering, including all those who purchased Tibet stock after December 28, 2010.

Tibet focuses on the research, development, manufacturing, marketing and selling of modernized traditional Tibetan medicines in China. The Complaint asserts violations of the federal securities laws against Tibet, its officers and directors, and underwriters of the IPO for issuing allegedly inaccurate statements of material fact about the Company’s financial and business condition, which ultimately caused trading of Tibet’s stock to be halted and delisted by the NASDAQ, causing investors to lose nearly their entire investment. The Complaint alleges that defendants misrepresented and failed to disclose the Company’s material internal control deficiencies, which rendered the Registration Statement and Prospectus materially false and misleading.

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 Tibet common stock pursuant or traceable to the Company’s IPO and/or after December 28, 2010, you have certain rights, and have until July 25, 2012 to move for lead plaintiff status. To be a member of the class you need not take any action at this time, and you may retain counsel of your choice.

http://www.howardsmithlaw.com.

top

Romney calls Obama's health care requirement a tax

Lawyer Blog Post 2012/07/04 02:05   Bookmark and Share
Mitt Romney on Wednesday said requiring all Americans to buy health insurance amounts to a tax, contradicting a senior campaign adviser who days ago said the Republican presidential candidate viewed President Barack Obama's mandate as anything but a tax.

"The majority of the court said it's a tax and therefore it is a tax. They have spoken. There's no way around that," Romney told CBS News. "You can try and say you wish they had decided a different way but they didn't. They concluded it was a tax."

Romney's comments amounted to a shift in position. Earlier in the week, senior adviser Eric Fehrnstrom said Romney viewed the mandate as a penalty, a fee or a fine - not a tax.

The Supreme Court last week ruled that the federal requirement to buy health insurance or pay a penalty is constitutional because it can be considered a tax. The requirement is part of the broad health care overhaul that Obama signed into law in March 2010.

top

Report: Okla. court shooting suspect delusional

Court News 2012/07/03 02:05   Bookmark and Share
Prosecutors will review a psychological evaluation that concludes a man accused in a shooting outside the Tulsa County Courthouse doesn't have the capacity to rationally aid in his defense.

Andrew Joseph Dennehy "is exhibiting psychotic symptoms that are marked by delusions of persecution, paranoid ideation and auditory hallucinations," according to Curtis Grundy, a psychologist retained by the defense to evaluate Dennehy.

Grundy's report, filed in court Monday, recommends that Dennehy "be adjudicated as incompetent to stand trial and referred for inpatient psychiatric treatment" for competency restoration at the Oklahoma Forensic Center in Vinita, the Tulsa World  reported.

Dennehy has explained that "the Freemasons and illuminati were conspiring to harm or kill himself and his parents" and that, in response, "he attempted to have himself killed by the police so that the illuminati and Freemasons would leave his parents alone," according to Grundy's report.

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