A Manhattan federal judge has dismissed a lawsuit challenging a New York rule banning law firms from selling ownership stakes to non-lawyers.

The suit was filed by the personal injury firm Jacoby & Meyers.

The firm said the rule violated its First Amendment freedom-of-association rights.

It claimed that the rule preventing non-lawyers from owning stakes in law firms hindered its ability to raise capital to cover technology and expansion costs. It also said it hurt its ability to provide legal services to working class clients.

According to the Wall Street Journal, the judge found that Jacoby & Meyers' ability to raise money from non-lawyers would still be restricted by other New York laws even if he struck down the rule.

A former top lawyer for the city of Detroit who lost her job for describing a local court as "ghetto" has lost an appeal over her dismissal.

A federal appeals court says Friday that Kathleen Leavey's comments in 2009 were not protected under the First Amendment because they were made as part of her job.

Leavey, who is white, has said she used the word "ghetto" in a conversation with a court employee to describe Detroit's 36th District Court as inefficient and poor in serving the public. The chief judge, who is black, heard about the comment and contacted city hall. The angry call to a deputy mayor led to Leavey's departure.

The appeals court says the Constitution does not shield certain expressions made during official duties.

The Oklahoma Supreme Court on Tuesday tossed a $10 million jury verdict against Tyson Foods Inc., granting the company's request for a new trial based on allegations of juror misconduct and a mistake on interpreting the law.

Springdale, Ark.-based Tyson Foods claimed on appeal that some prospective jurors in the trial in McCurtain County, Okla., didn't answer questions fully or truthfully on juror questionnaires and the trial judge didn't allow oral questions on items covered in the forms filled out by the panelists.

The high court also agreed with Tyson that the growers weren't covered by the Oklahoma Consumer Protection Act. Growers had argued that since Tyson provided them with feed and chicks, that gave them standing as consumers.

Tyson has a large operation in the region, with more than 180 poultry producers in southwest Arkansas and southeast Oklahoma that raise broilers for Tyson's plant in Broken Bow, Okla. That plant and its related operations, including a feed mill, employ more than 1,700 people.

In 2008, 54 growers, with Rusty Armstrong as lead plaintiff, sued Tyson, claiming that farmers who didn't want to modernize their equipment were given inferior feed and chicks. They claimed that Tyson had favored growers who got better feed and livestock.

Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina on behalf of purchasers of the securities of TranS1 Inc. between February 21, 2008 and October 17, 2011, inclusive (the “Class Period”), seeking to pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

TranS1 is a medical device company that designs, develops and markets products that implement its proprietary surgical approach to treat degenerative conditions of the spine affecting the lower lumbar region. The Complaint alleges that during the Class Period the Company and certain of its executive officers misrepresented or failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company’s business, operations and financial performance, including that: (i) the Company was not in compliance with federal healthcare fraud and false claim statutes; (ii) the Company engaged in improper reimbursement practices; (iii) the Company lacked adequate internal and financial controls; and (iv), as a result of the foregoing, the Company’s statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times.

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 TranS1 securities between February 21, 2008 and October 17, 2011, you have certain rights, and have until March 26, 2012, to move for lead plaintiff status. To be a member of the class you need not take any action at this time; you may retain counsel of your choice or take no action 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 Michael Goldberg, Esquire, of Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP, 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100, Los Angeles, California 90067, by telephone at (310) 201-9150 or Toll Free at (888) 773-9224

The Supreme Court said Wednesday that California police officers cannot be sued because they used a warrant that may have been defective to search a woman's house.

The high court threw out the lawsuit against Los Angeles County Sheriff's Detective Curt Messerschmidt and other police officials, who were being sued personally by Augusta Millender for the search on her house and confiscation of her shotgun.

Police were looking for her foster son, Jerry Ray Bowen, who had recently shot at his ex-girlfriend with a black sawed-off shotgun. She told police that he may be at his foster mother's house, so Messerschmidt got a warrant to look for any weapons on the property and gang-related material, since Bowen was supposed to be a member of the Mona Park Crips and the Dodge Park Crips. The detective had his supervisors approve the warrant before submitting to the district attorney and a judge, who also approved the warrant.

Apple's dispute over the iPad trademark deepened Monday after the Chinese company that claims ownership of the name said it won a court ruling against sales of the popular tablet computer in China.

Xie Xianghui, a lawyer for Shenzhen Proview Technology, said the Intermediate People's Court in Huizhou, a city in southern China's Guangdong province, had ruled on Friday that distributors should stop selling iPads in China.

The ruling, which was also reported widely in China's state media, may not have a far-reaching effect. In its battle with Apple, Proview is utilizing lawsuits in several places and also requesting commercial authorities in 40 cities to block iPad sales.

Apple Inc. said in a statement Monday that its case is still pending in mainland China. The company has appealed to Guangdong's High Court against an earlier ruling in Proview's favor.

Apple insists it holds the trademark rights to the iPad in China.