|
|
|
High court could block 'light' cigarettes lawsuit
Court Watch News |
2008/10/07 07:12
|
| div class=articleThe Supreme Court picked up Monday where it left off last term, signaling support for efforts to block lawsuits against tobacco companies over deceptive marketing of light cigarettes. pThe first day of the court's new term, which is set in law as the first Monday in October, included denials of hundreds of appeals. Chief Justice John Roberts opened the new session in a crowded courtroom that included retired Justice Sandra Day O'Connor./ppLast term, the justices handed down several opinions that limited state regulation of business in favor of federal power. Several justices posed skeptical questions in this term's first case, whether federal law prevents smokers from using consumer protection laws to go after tobacco companies for their marketing of light and low tar cigarettes./ppThe companies are facing dozens of such lawsuits across the country./ppThe federal cigarette labeling law bars states from regulating any aspect of cigarette advertising that involves smoking and health./ppHow do you tell it's deceptive or not if you don't look at what the relationship is between smoking and health?, Chief Justice John Roberts said during oral arguments on the case./ppThree Maine residents sued Altria Group Inc. and its Philip Morris USA Inc. subsidiary under the state's law against unfair marketing practices. The class-action claim represents all smokers of Marlboro Lights or Cambridge Lights cigarettes, both made by Philip Morris./ppThe lawsuit argues that the company knew for decades that smokers of light cigarettes compensate for the lower levels of tar and nicotine by taking longer puffs and compensating in other ways./ppA federal district court threw out the lawsuit, but the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said it could go forward./ppThe role of the Federal Trade Commission could be important in the outcome. The FTC is only now proposing to change rules that for years condoned the use of light and low tar in advertising the cigarettes, despite evidence that smokers were getting a product as dangerous as regular cigarettes./p/div |
|
|
|
|
|
|
J.K. Rowling Smites Copyright Violator
Court Watch News |
2008/09/09 07:02
|
J.K. Rowling vanquished the forces of darkness Monday when a federaljudge permanently enjoined RDR Books from publishing The Harry PotterLexicon, a guidebook to Rowling's best-selling series. U.S. DistrictJudge Robert Patterson Jr. blocked also ordered RDR to pay $6,750 instatutory damages.
Steven Jan Vander Ark, a librarian andHarry Potter fan, thus cannot publish his guide to Rowling's series,for which he said there was a considerable demand. Warner Bros., whichmade the Harry Potter movies, joined Rowling in suing for copyrightviolations.
The ruling came 5 months after a 4-day trial,during which Rowling described the Lexicon as wholesale theft of 17years of my hard work.
The next day at trial, Vander Ark sobbed on the stand, clearly upset that he had annoyed Rowling.
Judge Patterson found that RDR Books failed to establish its affirmative defense of fair use. a href=http://www.courthousenews.com/2008/09/09/Rowling.pdfimg src=http://www.courthousenews.com/document.ico border=0 alt=//a |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ninth Circuit rules on 'no-fly' list
Court Watch News |
2008/08/20 07:07
|
The US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled Monday that those placed on the government's no-fly list can challenge their inclusion on the list in federal district courts. The issue came before the court in a case brought by a woman on the list, in which a district court had ruled that it lacked jurisdiction because of a law exempting Transportation Security Administration orders from federal trial court review. Reversing the decision, the Ninth Circuit held that the Terrorist Screening Center which actually maintains the list is a subsection of the Federal Bureau of Investigation and is therefore subject to review by the district courts:
blockquoteOur interpretation of section 46110 is consistent not merely with the statutory language but with common sense as well. Just how would an appellate court review the agency’s decision to put a particular name on the list? There was no hearing before an administrative law judge; there was no notice-and comment procedure. For all we know, there is no administrative record of any sort for us to review. So if any court is going to review the government’s decision to put Ibrahim’s name on the No-Fly List, it makes sense that it be a court with the ability to take evidence./blockquoteThe court also held that the woman could not bring two related claims because they were “inescapably intertwined” with TSA orders. The San Francisco Chronicle has more.
In July, the US terror watchlist, which includes the no-fly list, was criticized by the American Civil Liberties Union for being too large, containing inaccuracies, and lacking safeguards to prevent the unnecessary targeting of passengers for additional security screenings. In March, the US Department of Justice Office of the Inspector General issued a report saying that FBI had submitted inaccurate information to the list, that the information was rarely reviewed before its submission, and even if discrepancies become apparent they were often left unchanged. In response to the audit, FBI Assistant Director John Miller said that the agency was working with the DOJ and other partner agencies to ensure the proper balance between national security protection and the need for accurate, efficient, and streamlined watchlist processes. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Second Circuit Protects Plaintiff's Anonymity
Court Watch News |
2008/08/18 08:27
|
A woman who filed a lawsuit for physical and sexual assault should be allowed to remain anonymous, the 2nd Circuit ruled in a question of first impression.
Judge Cabranes found that the district court improperly dismissed the plaintiff's case due to her refusal to give her name.
While plaintiffs usually must state their names to give the opposition a chance to mount a defense, Cabranes ruled that the district court stuck to the letter of the law without considering whether plaintiff had a legitimate need to keep her identity hidden.
The district court did not balance the plaintiff's interest in proceeding anonymously against the interests of the defendants and the public, Cabranes wrote. |
|
|
|
|
|
Legal News RSS Feed
