|
|
|
Pa. high court denies Orie Melvin request
Court Watch |
2012/07/18 22:36
|
A Pennsylvania state Supreme Court justice who is fighting political corruption charges has lost a request for her fellow justices to intervene in her criminal court case and require that an out-of-county judge preside over it.
The state Supreme Court issued the one-page order denying the request from suspended Justice Joan Orie Melvin on Tuesday. Melvin had sought to keep Allegheny County judges from hearing her case, complaining that one Allegheny County judge is married to a key prosecution witness, Lisa Sasinoski.
Melvin also had objected to a local district judge presiding over her preliminary hearing, saying the case may be too complex. Melvin asked her colleagues on the state Supreme Court to intervene after an Allegheny County judge denied her initial request. |
|
|
|
|
|
Wis. town barred from beefing up farm water rules
Legal Network |
2012/07/11 22:26
|
The Wisconsin Supreme Court ruled Wednesday that a rural town lacksthe authority to impose tougher water-quality standards on a livestockfarm than the state requires.Magnolia, a community about 30 miles south of Madison, granted LarsonAcres Inc. a permit in 2007 when it wanted to expand, but included anumber of conditions because residents blamed it for polluting theirwater supply. The farm initially had 1,000 cows and now has about2,900.Among the conditions, the farm had to allow the town to conductmonthly water quality tests on its land, and it had to follow certaincrop-rotation strategies to reduce nitrate buildup.The farm sued, arguing that pollution-control measures are laid out bythe state and can't be modified by individual towns.The state Supreme Court agreed, ruling that the town exceeded itsauthority by imposing additional measures.The case has been watched by rural Midwest communities struggling todeal with the expansion of so-called factory farms. States throughoutthe farm belt have seen big farms get bigger as the agricultureindustry continues to consolidate.Similar cases have been filed in six other Midwestern states, butWisconsin's is believed to be the first to reach a state supremecourt. |
|
|
|
|
|
Texas Voter ID Law to be Tested in a Federal Court
Legal Opinions |
2012/07/09 22:11
|
The fate of Texas' controversial new voter ID law - which requires voters to show photo identification at the polls - is set to be decided this week in a federal court in Washington.
The state, which claims the law will prevent voter fraud, is seeking to persuade a three-judge panel to uphold the statute. The Justice Department and a slew of intervening groups say the law disproportionately affects minority voters, violating the federal Voting Rights Act. They want it thrown out.
The case will be a test of the Voting Rights Act, passed in 1965, which was designed to protect minorities' rights to vote.
The Justice Department set up this week's court fight when it blocked implementation of the law in March. Texas quickly filed a lawsuit in federal court, bringing the two sides back to Washington for the second time in months.
The two sides spent two weeks earlier this year arguing in front of a similar three-judge panel about Texas' redrawn congressional maps. As now, the Justice Department claimed Texas was violating the federal Voting Rights Act. No final decision has been made in that case, but a federal court has approved interim maps that have allowed Texas elections to go ahead. |
|
|
|
|
|
State argues high court AZ ruling supports GA law
Court Watch |
2012/07/06 22:22
|
The state of Georgia said Friday in a court filing that its law targeting illegal immigration should be upheld in light of the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling last month on a similar law enacted by Arizona.
The high court upheld a section of Arizona's law that requires police to check the immigration status of those they stop for other reasons. It also struck down three key sections that would: require all immigrants to obtain or carry immigration registration papers; make it a state criminal offense for an illegal immigrant to seek work or hold a job; and allow police to arrest suspected illegal immigrants without warrants.
The 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in March heard arguments in challenges to both Georgia and Alabama's illegal immigration crackdowns, but the three-judge panel said at the time that it would wait to rule until after the Supreme Court had ruled in the Arizona case. Friday is the deadline for lawyers in those cases to submit new briefs based on the Supreme Court ruling. By early afternoon, only Georgia's filing was available in an online court system. |
|
|
|
|
Lawyer & Law Firm Websites |
|
|