|
|
|
Justices step back from Pa. court funding dispute
Legal Opinions |
2012/09/28 23:58
|
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court is declining a request by county governments that the justices force the General Assembly to provide more money for state courts and bring more uniformity to the court system.
The court ruled unanimously on Wednesday against the County Commissioners Association of Pennsylvania and 10 counties. The decision could end litigation over funding levels and uneven standards across the state that goes back a quarter century.
Chief Justice Ronald Castille's written opinion says there's been progress in recent years and the justices believe that "further enhancements" of the state courts should be a product of cooperation among the three branches of government.
An association spokesman says he's disappointed, while spokesmen for state House and Senate leaders didn't immediately respond to messages. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Court grants appeals from 2 people without lawyers
Court Issues |
2012/09/26 23:58
|
Well-heeled clients pay tens of thousands of dollars to hit the legal jackpot — Supreme Court review of their appeals. But on Tuesday, the court decided to hear cases filed by two people who couldn't afford or didn't bother to hire an attorney.
One was written in pencil and submitted by an inmate at a federal prison in Pennsylvania. The other was filed by a man with no telephone living on Guam.
Neither case seems destined to join the ranks of Gideon v. Wainwright, the landmark 1960s case filed by a prisoner with no lawyer that established a criminal defendant's right to a lawyer. Both show, however, that when the court is looking to resolve finicky legal issues and the right case shows up, it doesn't matter whether the author of the appeal wears a natty suit or prison garb.
Longtime Supreme Court practitioner Tom Goldstein called the granting of two such lawyerless cases at the same time "unheard of." But both cases chosen by the justices will help resolve the ability of civilians to sue the government over claims of improper actions of federal and military employees on the job.
Kim Lee Millbrook, a prisoner at the federal prison in Lewisburg, Pa., sued the government after accusing prison guards at the Special Management Unit of sexually assaulting him in May 2010. Prison officials said Millbrook's claim was unsubstantiated. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Appeals court reverses ruling on campaign donors
Court Issues |
2012/09/22 22:35
|
An appeals court on Tuesday reversed a lower court ruling that likely would have led to greater disclosure of who is paying for certain election ads.
In March, U.S. District Judge Amy Berman Jackson ruled that the Federal Election Commission overstepped its bounds in allowing groups that fund certain election ads to keep their financiers anonymous.
But Tuesday's unanimous ruling by a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia sent the case back to Jackson, with instructions to refer the matter to the FEC for further consideration.
At issue are electioneering communications — ads that don't expressly advocate voting for or against a candidate running for federal office. In 2007, the FEC ruled that only contributors whose donations were "made for the purpose of furthering electioneering communications" had to be identified; those who gave unrestricted money did not have to be identified. The FEC regulation came in response to a Supreme Court ruling that gave more latitude to nonprofit groups — like the Karl Rove-backed Crossroads GPS and the President Barack Obama-leaning Priorities USA — on pre-election ads.
Rep. Chris Van Hollen, D-Md., sued the FEC over the regulation, which he called a "loophole" that made the disclosure requirements meaningless. He won a summary judgment from Jackson, who was appointed by Obama. The judge ruled that "Congress spoke plainly" in passing the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law — and did not delegate authority to the FEC to narrow the disclosure requirement. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mo. high court hears arguments on incentive fund
Legal Interview |
2012/09/20 22:35
|
Missouri Supreme Court judges are weighing two potentially contradictory sections of legislation while deciding whether a new law creating an incentive fund for high-tech businesses can take effect.
Arguments Wednesday before the high court focused on the bill's contingency clause, which made the program effective only if lawmakers also passed a separate economic development bill during a 2011 special session. A trial judge struck down the entire law earlier this year, ruling the contingency clause was unconstitutional.
During an appeal to the Supreme Court, the attorney general's office argued that judges should focus a severability clause that also was contained in the bill. That section said that if part of the measure were struck down, other portions of the bill could still be allowed to take effect. |
|
|
|
|
|
| Lawyer & Law Firm Websites |
|
|
Legal News RSS Feed
