|
|
|
Court ruling could delay California water project
Headline Court News |
2014/03/17 13:53
|
A state appellate court has ruled that California water officials cannot go onto private property for soil testing and other studies related to construction of two massive tunnels that would siphon water from the Sacramento River.
Nancy Vogel of the state's Department of Water Resources said Friday that officials anticipated the ruling and work won't be delayed.
The decision handed down Thursday by the state's 3rd District Court of Appeal says an intrusion on private property without permission violates the California Constitution.
If built, the Bay Delta Conservation Plan — estimated to cost billions of dollars — would send fresh water around the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta to Central and Southern California.
The ruling stems from a lawsuit filed against the state by more than 150 property owners in Sacramento, San Joaquin, Yolo, Solano and Contra Costa counties.
The three-judge panel ruled 2-1 in a 44-page decision with the majority opinion saying the state must adhere to eminent domain laws, which give property owners the right to a jury trial to determine a fair payment for taking away their land.
Acts such as testing soil, observing or trapping animals either by driving onto property, using boats or going on foot amount to "taking" and trigger the need for eminent domain proceedings, the majority opinion said. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Court weighs securities fraud class-action cases
Headline Court News |
2014/03/05 13:09
|
The Supreme Court is considering whether to abandon a quarter-century of precedent and make it tougher for investors to band together to sue corporations for securities fraud.
The justices hear arguments Wednesday in an appeal by Halliburton Co. that seeks to block a class-action lawsuit claiming the energy services company inflated its stock price.
A group of investors says it lost money when Halliburton's stock price dropped after revelations the company misrepresented revenues, understated its liability in asbestos litigation and overstated the benefits of a merger.
Justices threw out the company's first attempt to block the lawsuit in 2011. But Halliburton is now urging the court to overturn a 25-year-old decision that sparked a tidal wave of securities-related, class-action lawsuits against publicly traded companies and has led to billions in settlements.
The court's 1988 decision in Basic v. Levinson says shareholders who claim they were defrauded by false statements in securities filings don't have to prove they actually relied on the statements. Rather, the court reasoned that any misrepresentation would be reflected in the current stock price. Even if investors are not aware of the misstatements, they are presumed to be aware of them because they affect the stock price.
This presumption, known as the "fraud-on-the-market theory," has become the driving force for modern class-action securities cases. But some economists have questioned whether this theory makes sense anymore, saying it doesn't account for the sometimes random and arbitrary nature of stock trading. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
California court: Drivers can read cellphone maps
Headline Court News |
2014/03/05 13:09
|
Drivers in California can legally read a map on their hand-held cellphones while behind the wheel, a state appeals court ruled Thursday.
The 5th District Court of Appeal reversed the case of a Fresno man who was ticketed in January 2012 for looking at a map on his iPhone 4 while stuck in traffic. The driver, Steven Spriggs, challenged the $165 fine.
But Spriggs said he's no champion of those who think they can get away with cruising down the road while staring at their phone or engaging in other such dangerous behavior. Spriggs would like the law that ensnared him to be rewritten so officers can do their job unencumbered.
"We're distracted all the time," he said. "If our distractions cause us to drive erratically, we should be arrested for driving erratically."
It's personal for Spriggs, whose son suffered a broken leg from a driver who was chatting on a cellphone. Spriggs said he uses a hands-free device to talk and drive.
The incident that ensnared Spriggs happened when he was stopped by roadwork. He had grabbed his cellphone to find an alternate route when a California Highway Patrol officer on a motorcycle spotted him and wrote the ticket.
Spriggs first challenged the case in traffic court, where he lost, and then appealed it himself to a three-judge panel in Fresno County Superior Court, where he lost a second time. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gov. Snyder signs jury duty, trampoline court laws
Headline Court News |
2014/02/20 14:08
|
Michigan Gov. Rick Snyder has signed a law letting full-time college students postpone jury duty until the end of the school year.
The governor on Tuesday also approved rules for indoor trampoline parks where adults and kids can bounce around for a fee.
Snyder says jury duty is "an important part of our civil responsibility" but can be disruptive to college students' studies. A similar exemption already exists for high school students.
The other law requires trampoline courts to publicly display rules and inform customers of the activity's inherent dangers. Trampoliners also must adhere to rules specified in the law.
A trampoline user, spectator or operator who violates the law is liable for damages in civil lawsuits. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
SC Supreme Court to rule on public autopsy reports
Headline Court News |
2014/02/03 14:50
|
South Carolina's Supreme Court will begin grappling with that question Wednesday, when it hears a lawsuit by a Sumter County newspaper against the county's coroner.
The Item newspaper wants the high court to toss out a lower court's ruling that said autopsies do not have to be made public because they do not fall under the state's Freedom of Information Act.
The coroner says autopsies should be considered medical records that are exempt from public view. The newspaper says autopsy reports are investigative tools, not medical records.
Open records advocates say the Sumter County case is an example of government officials making it harder to get public documents.
It's a debate that is far from settled nationally. About 15 states across the U.S. allow the public release of an autopsy report. About a half-dozen other states allow the release of reports not being used as part of a criminal investigation. The rest severely restrict what's released or don't give any information from the reports, according to the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press.
Keeping autopsy records secret closes off an important tool to make sure police agencies do the right thing when they investigate deaths, especially people shot and killed by officials or who die in custody, said Frank LoMonte, executive director of the Student Press Law Center.
"There is any number of cases over the years where journalist watchdogs have been able to shed light on suspicious circumstances only by having access on those records," LoMonte said. "And those records don't just show culpability, they can clear someone, too." |
|
|
|
|
|
|
High court rules against steelworkers' claim
Headline Court News |
2014/01/27 13:50
|
The Supreme Court says steelworkers do not have to be paid for time they spend putting on and taking off protective gear they wear on the job.
The court was unanimous Monday in ruling in favor of United States Steel Corp. over workers' claims that they should be paid under the terms of federal labor law for the time it takes them to put on flame-retardant jackets and pants, safety glasses, earplugs, hardhats and other equipment.
Justice Antonin Scalia said for the court that the labor agreement between the company and the workers' union says the employees don't get paid for time spent changing clothes. Scalia said most of the items count as clothing. He said earplugs, glasses and respirators are not clothing, but take little time to put on. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Court: Feds can target California pot clinics
Headline Court News |
2014/01/16 14:09
|
An appeals court Wednesday affirmed the federal government's long-standing policy that California medical marijuana dispensaries have no protection under state law from drug prosecutions.
The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled Wednesday that three California dispensaries, their customers and their landlords are barred from using a state law allowing marijuana use with a doctor's recommendation as a shield from criminal charges and government lawsuits. All uses of marijuana are illegal under the federal Controlled Substances Act, also known as the CSA, even in states that have legalized pot.
The ruling upholds three lower court decisions and follows previous rulings by federal appeals courts and the U.S. Supreme Court.
The 9th Circuit panel conceded that medical marijuana use is more accepted now than several years ago when it made a similar ruling. But it said the new legal challenges didn't raise any new arguments that would trump federal law. |
|
|
|
|
|
Legal News RSS Feed
