|
|
|
Court: Colorado county wrongly OK’d asphalt plant near homes
Court Watch |
2017/11/25 05:59
|
A Colorado court has overturned Weld County’s approval of a $20 million concrete and asphalt plant currently under construction, saying the county had evidence the plant would violate noise standards.
The Greeley Tribune reports the Colorado Court of Appeals ruled Wednesday the county commissioners improperly approved the Martin Marietta Materials plant near a residential neighborhood.
The site is also near an organic farm and a planned wedding venue along U.S. 34 between Greeley and Loveland.
Officials for Martin Marietta and Weld County said they were reviewing the decision before deciding their next steps. County commissioners approved the plant in August 2015 and neighbors filed suit a month later.
Construction began in October of 2015, and Martin Marietta regional vice president David Hagerman says the plant is nearly complete.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Court case exposes rift in Germany's secretive Aldi family
Court Watch |
2017/11/23 05:59
|
A court deferred ruling Thursday in a case that has exposed a rift within Germany's secretive Albrecht family, owners of the discount supermarket chain Aldi.
The dispute centers on the control over Aldi Nord, which operates in northern Germany and at least eight other European countries.
The widow of late patriarch Berthold Albrecht is contesting changes her husband made before his death in 2012 to the statutes of a family foundation that owns 19.5 percent of Aldi Nord.
A lower court sided with Babette Albrecht and her children, who are pitted against Berthold's brother, Theo Jr., and mother Caecilie Albrecht.
Germany's Manager Magazin recently estimated the Aldi Nord branch of the family's wealth at about 18 billion euros ($21 billion). The Schleswig court said the case would continue Dec. 7. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Court, for now, blocks immigrant teen's access to abortion
Court Watch |
2017/10/21 01:32
|
An appeals court is blocking, for now, an abortion sought by a pregnant 17-year-old immigrant being held in a Texas facility, ruling that the government should have time to try to release her so she can obtain the abortion outside of federal custody.
A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia issued its ruling Friday hours after arguments from lawyers for the Trump administration and the teenager. The court ruled 2-1 that the government should have until Oct. 31 to release the girl into the custody of a sponsor, such as an adult relative in the United States. If that happens, she could obtain an abortion if she chooses. If she isn't released, the case can go back to court.
The judge who dissented wrote that the court's ruling means the teen will be forced to continue an unwanted pregnancy for "multiple more weeks."
The teen, whose name and country of origin have been withheld because she's a minor, is 15 weeks pregnant. She entered the U.S. in September and learned she was pregnant while in custody in Texas.
She obtained a court order Sept. 25 permitting her to have an abortion. But federal officials have refused to transport her or temporarily release her so that others may take her to have an abortion. A lower federal court ruled that she should be able to obtain an abortion Friday or Saturday, but the government appealed.
Federal health officials said in a statement that for "however much time" they are given they "will protect the well-being of this minor and all children and their babies" in their facilities.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Court weighing whether graffiti mecca was protected by law
Court Watch |
2017/10/20 01:32
|
For two decades, Jerry Wolkoff let graffiti artists use his crumbling Queens warehouse complex as a canvas for their vibrant works. Artists gave the spot the name "5Pointz" — a place where all five New York City boroughs come together — but painters traveled from as far as Japan and Brazil to tag, bomb and burn at what became a graffiti mecca and a tourist destination.
But like most graffiti, it didn't last. Wolkoff whitewashed the building in 2013 then tore it down to build luxury apartment towers.
Four years later, some of the artists whose work was destroyed are in court, arguing that even though the building belonged to Wolkoff, the art was protected by federal law.
A trial that started Tuesday at a federal court in Brooklyn will determine whether the artists should be compensated for the lost work.
More than 20 artists sued Wolkoff under the Visual Artists Rights Act, or VARA, a 1990 federal statute that protects artists' rights even if someone else owns the physical artwork.
A trial that started Tuesday at a federal court in Brooklyn will determine whether the artists should be compensated for the lost work.
More than 20 artists sued Wolkoff under the Visual Artists Rights Act, or VARA, a 1990 federal statute that protects artists' rights even if someone else owns the physical artwork.
Barry Werbin, an attorney specializing in intellectual property, said the case is significant because no lawsuit under the statute has been tried by a jury before.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Lawyer & Law Firm Websites |
|
|
Legal News RSS Feed
