|
|
|
Ginsburg Reverses FOIA Denial
Court Issues |
2008/06/16 14:45
|
An airplane enthusiast has the right to seek documents from the Federal Aviation Administration, though the lower court had denied his friend the same documents.
Greg Herrick was denied access to the documents, due to an exemption covering trade secrets. When his friend filed a similar lawsuit, the lower court said the lawsuit was precluded by the first ruling. The D.C. Circuit upheld, but Justice Ginsburg reversed, shooting down the Circuit's 5-point test for "virtual representation."
"Extending the preclusive effect of a judgment to a non-party runs up against the deep-rooted historic tradition that everyone should have his own day in court," Ginsburg wrote.
For a lawsuit to be precluded, the two parties must have "pre-existing substantive legal relationship" or one party must have assumed control over the previous litigation, according to the unanimous opinion. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Class Claims Steak House Knowingly Hires Illegals
Court Issues |
2008/06/11 14:46
|
Ruth's Chris Steak House systematically hired undocumented workers and lets them use the Social Security numbers of previous workers, and harassed and threatened a legal worker who complained of it, a RICO class action claims in Federal Court.
The lawsuit claims that after an INS sweep of Ruth's Chris Steak House in Birmingham, many undocumented workers returned "wearing different name tags." It claims the restaurant hires undocumented workers on a "large scale," pays them in cash, knowingly accepts I-9 immigration forms containing false information, and otherwise knowingly violates immigration and employment laws.
Plaintiffs also accuse Ruth's Chris of "stealing" 20% to 25% of its workers' tips. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Judge Removed From Office For Phone Rage
Court Issues |
2008/06/10 14:19
|
Niagara Falls City Judge Robert Restaino was removed from office in an apparent case of telephone rage. Frustrated that no one owned up to the cacophonous cell phone that rang in the back of his courtroom, Restaino sent 46 defendants to jail.
The New York Court of Appeals said removal was proper, because Restaino acted in a way that eroded confidence in his ability to render fair, rational judgments.
When the cell phone went off, Restaino told the defendants in his courtroom, "Now, whoever owns the instrument that is ringing, bring it to me now or everybody could take a week in jail and please don't tell me I'm the only one that heard that."
After a fruitless inquiry to find the owner, he reiterated, "Everyone is going to jail; every single person is going to jail in this courtroom unless I get that instrument now. If anybody believes I'm kidding, ask some of the folks that have been here for a while. You are all going."
He questioned the 35 remaining defendants and recalled 11 defendants whom he had previously released before the phone rang. Dissatisfied with their responses, he revoked their recognizance release and imposed bail. He even set bail for a petitioner who had been standing next to the judge when the phone rang in the back of the room.
He then ranted about the breach of courtroom decorum. "You know, for some of you folks, this hurts me more than you imagine because someone in this courtroom has no consideration for you, no consideration for me and just doesn't care," he said. "Some of you people may not be in the (same) economic situation (as) this selfish person ... (is who) put(s) their interests (sic) above everybody else's. They don't care what happens to anybody."
The 46 defendants were transported to the city jail, booked, searched and placed in holding cells. Thirty-two defendants posted bail, while the remaining 14 who could not post bail were shackled and bused to the county jail.
The state court said the circumstances qualified as "truly egregious" to merit removal from office. "(I)t is ironic that petitioner displayed the very attributes by which he accused and summarily punished each defendant," the court added. Restaino had "more than 46 chances to correct himself and failed to do so." |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Black Public Defenders Sue Atlanta
Court Issues |
2008/06/05 14:51
|
In pursuit of "greater diversity," the City of Atlanta laid off five black female public defenders who were better qualified and had more experience than the white men it retained, the women claim in Federal Court.
The women claim, "the decision makers regarding the reduction in force laid off plaintiffs as part of an effort to achieve what they perceived as greater diversity in a department that had previously had primarily African American and female employees."
The woman want reinstatement, back pay, damages and costs, alleging racial and sexual discrimination. |
|
|
|
|
|
| Lawyer & Law Firm Websites |
|
|
Legal News RSS Feed
