New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
Rhode Island
Law Firm Website Design Companies : The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly

A federal appeals court says a U.S. Border Patrol agent who fired his gun in Texas and fatally wounded a teenager across the Mexican border cannot be sued by the teen's family.

The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled Tuesday in the case of 15-year-old Sergio Adrian Hernandez. He was killed by agent Jesus Mesa  in 2010. The Justice Department has said Mesa was trying to stop illegal border crossings and fired after he came under a barrage of rocks.

The appeals court voted 13-2 to uphold a federal district judge's dismissal of the family's claims. The case involved questions of whether and when constitutional rights afforded American citizens extend to non-citizens outside the nation's boundaries.

The appellate court majority said the case involved issues of diplomacy and national security.

The Supreme Court ruled Wednesday to make it harder for the federal government to use a section of tax law to convict someone of obstruction.

The government had interpreted a section of the tax code to give it a broad ability to charge someone with obstructing or impeding the work of the Internal Revenue Service. It argued that someone could violate the statute by doing something intended to obstruct the IRS' work, like shredding records, even if the person wasn't under investigation at the time or was under investigation but didn't know it.

But the Supreme Court ruled 7 to 2 to limit the application of the statue. The justices said that to convict someone, the government must show a connection between the obstructive action the person takes and a particular investigation or audit that was pending, or at least reasonably foreseeable.

The court's majority opinion pointed out problems with reading the law broadly. "Interpreted broadly, the provision could apply to a person who pays a babysitter $41 per week in cash without withholding taxes, leaves a large cash tip in a restaurant, fails to keep donation receipts from every charity to which he or she contributes, or fails to provide every record to an accountant.

Such an individual may sometimes believe that, in doing so, he is running the risk of having violated an IRS rule, but we sincerely doubt he would believe he is facing a potential felony prosecution for tax obstruction," Justice Stephen Breyer wrote for court.

The Supreme Court is hearing arguments in a free speech fight over California's attempt to regulate anti-abortion crisis pregnancy centers.

The case being argued Tuesday involves information required by a state law that the centers must provide clients about the availability of contraception, abortion and pre-natal care, at little or no cost. Centers that are unlicensed also must post a sign that says so.

The centers say that they are being forced to deliver a message with which they disagree because their aim is to steer women away from abortion.

California and abortions rights group that backed the law say its goal is to provide accurate information about the range of options facing a pregnant woman.

The outcome also could affect laws in other states that seek to regulate doctors' speech.

In Louisiana, Texas and Wisconsin, doctors must display a sonogram and describe the fetus to most pregnant women considering an abortion, according to the Guttmacher Institute, which supports abortion rights. Similar laws have been blocked in Kentucky, North Carolina and Oklahoma.

Doctors' speech has also been an issue in non-abortion cases. A federal appeals court struck down parts of a 2011 Florida law that sought to prohibit doctors from talking about gun safety with their patients. Under the law, doctors faced fines and the possible loss of their medical licenses for discussing guns with patients.

In another lawsuit over regulating crisis pregnancy centers, a federal appeals court in New York struck down parts of a New York City ordinance, although it upheld the requirement for unlicensed centers to say that they lack a license.

The abortion-rights group NARAL Pro-Choice California was a prime sponsor of the California law. NARAL contends that the centers mislead women about their options and try to pressure them to forgo abortion. Estimates of the number of crisis pregnancy centers in the U.S. run from 2,500 to more than 4,000, compared with fewer than 1,500 abortion providers, women's rights groups said in a Supreme Court filing.

California's law was challenged by the National Institute of Family and Life Advocates, an organization with ties to 1,500 pregnancy centers nationwide and 140 in California.

The Supreme Court is leaving in place a ruling that revived two federal lawsuits stemming from the lead-tainted water crisis in Flint, Michigan.

The Supreme Court declined Monday to get involved in the cases, leaving in place a decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. The appeals court ruled in July 2017 that a federal trial court had improperly dismissed federal civil rights claims in the lawsuits, which were brought by Flint residents. The trial court ruled that a federal law called the Safe Drinking Water Act precluded those claims, but the appeals court disagreed.

The Supreme Court's decision not to get involved means the cases will return to the trial court to move forward. Other similar lawsuits are also at the trial court level.

The Supreme Court is rejecting a challenge to Arizona's death penalty law.

The justices on Monday let stand the convictions and death sentences of Abel Daniel Hidalgo. He's in a federal prison in Arizona serving life sentences for two other killings committed on an Indian reservation in Idaho.
Hidalgo says the law doesn't sufficiently narrow eligibility for a death sentence.

Arizona law includes 14 aggravating circumstances that prosecutors can put forward to justify a death sentence. Jurors then deliberate between a sentence of death or life in prison.

The court's four more liberal justices say they would be willing to take up the issue Hidalgo raised but in a different case in which lower courts could more thoroughly explore it first.

Bolivia made an emotional appeal Monday for the International Court of Justice to order Chile to enter talks over granting the landlocked South American nation access to the Pacific Ocean, saying the dispute will remain a source of conflict if it's not resolved.

Bolivia lost its only seacoast to Chile in a war between from 1879 to 1883, and has been demanding access to the Pacific for generations. Bolivia also accuses Chile of reneging on pledges to negotiate.

"For 139 years, Bolivia has suffered the historical injustice of becoming landlocked," former Bolivian President Eduardo Rodriguez Veltze told judges sitting in the ornate Great Hall of Justice at the world court's headquarters, the Peace Palace. "Restoring Bolivia's sovereign access to the sea would make a small difference to Chile, but it would transform the destiny of Bolivia."

Chile argues that its border with Bolivia was settled in a 1904 treaty and that it's not under any legal obligation to negotiate. Chile's lawyers will present their case later this week.

Prof. Payam Akhavan, a lawyer representing Bolivia, said that despite the treaty, Chile had made repeated pledges to find a solution to the dispute.

"If the 1904 treaty settled all issues for all times, if there was no remaining dispute, why did the parties continue to negotiate sovereign access for more than a century?" he said.

"This case is not an academic exercise. It is not mere political posturing," Akhavan told judges. "The people have suffered real and continuing injury. Chile cannot sweep this dispute under the carpet. It will remain a constant source of conflict until it is resolved."

Rodriguez said that Bolivia's lack of direct access to the sea is holding back its economy.

"It is estimated that if Bolivia had not been stripped of the sea, the annual GDP (gross domestic product) growth could be at least 20 percent higher," he told judges.

Rulings by the court, the United Nations' highest judicial organ, are final and binding. Judges will likely take months to issue a decision.

A French court ruled Thursday that Facebook failed to fulfill its contractual obligations by closing without prior notice the account of a user who posted a photo of a famous 19th century nude painting.

But the Paris civil court also refused to order the company to restore the account or pay damages as requested by the user, a primary school teacher and art lover. The court said no damages were warranted because he didn't prove any harm suffered due to the account's closure and there was no need to order the account reopened because he was able to set up a new account immediately.

The court also said the 60-year-old Parisian teacher, Frederic Durand-Baissas, didn't prove the deactivation was caused by his posting of the painting.

The judge wrote that Durand-Baissas also didn't provide evidence that he lost contact information for hundreds of "friends," as his lawyer argued during a trial last month.

The plaintiff claimed his profile was suspended in 2011 hours after he posted a photo of Gustave Courbet's "The Origin of the World," a painting from 1866 that depicts female genitalia. He asked the court to order Facebook to reactivate his initial account and to pay him 20,000 euros ($23,500) in damages.

His lawyer, Stephane Cottineau, said that the decision was disappointing and that he would appeal the ruling.

Legal News | Breaking News | Terms & Conditions | Privacy | Law Firm Web Design, Attorney Website Design by Law Promo

ⓒ Breaking Legal News. All Rights Reserved.

The content contained on the web site has been prepared by BLN as a service to the internet community and is not intended to constitute legal advice or a substitute for consultation with a licensed legal professional in a particular case.
   More Legal News
   Legal Spotlight
   Exclusive Commentaries
   Attorney & Blog - Blog Watch
   Law Firm News  1  2  3  4  5  6 
   Lawyer & Law Firm Links
San Francisco Trademark Lawyer
San Francisco Copyright Lawyer
Philadelphia Employment Lawyer
Attorney Marc E. Weinstein
New Rochelle Accidents Attorneys
New Rochelle Personal Injury
Canton Criminal Lawyer
Canton DUI lawyer
Surry County Criminal Defense Lawyers
Yadkin County Family Law Attorneys
Oregon DUI Law Attorney
Eugene DUI Lawyer. Criminal Defense Law
Houston Car Accident Attorneys
Wrongful Death Attorneys Houston
Houston Wrongful Death
New York Adoption Lawyers
New York Foster Care Lawyers
Adoption Pre-Certification
Chicago Work Accident Lawyer
Chicago Workplace Injury Attorneys
St. Louis Missouri Criminal Defense Lawyer
St. Charles DUI Attorney
Santa Ana Workers' Compensation Lawyers
China trademark registration lawyer
Eugene Bankruptcy Attorney
Bankruptcy Attorney Eugene
Lorain Elyria Divorce Lawyer
Connecticut Special Education Lawyer
   More Legal News  1  2  3  4  5  6
   Legal News Links
  Click The Law
  Daily Bar News
  The Legal Voice
  The Legal Report
  Legal News Post
  Crisis Legal News
  Legal News Journal
  Law Firm Logos
  Attorney Web Design
  Immigration Law Web Design
  Law Firm Directory