High court won't block early voting in Ohio

Legal Insight 2012/10/22 13:52   Bookmark and Share
The Supreme Court on Tuesday cleared the way for voters in the
battleground state of Ohio to cast ballots on the three days before
Election Day, giving Democrats and President Barack Obama's campaign a
victory three weeks before the election.

The court refused a request by the state's Republican elections chief
and attorney general to get involved in a battle over early voting.

Ohio is among 34 states, plus the District of Columbia, where people
can vote early without giving any reason. About 30 percent of the
swing state's total vote — or roughly 1.7 million ballots — came in
before Election Day in 2008. Crucial to Obama's win that year was
early voting in Ohio, North Carolina and Florida.

Obama won Ohio four years ago, but Republican rival Mitt Romney is
making a strong play for it this year. No GOP candidate has won the
White House without Ohio in his column.

Obama's campaign and Ohio Democrats had sued state officials over
changes in state law that took away the three days of voting for most
people but made exceptions for military personnel and Ohioans living
overseas.

Their lawsuit cited a recent study saying nearly 105,000 people voted
in the three days before the election in 2008, and they argued
everyone should have the chance to vote on those days. They also said
eliminating the opportunity for most Ohio residents to vote in person
on those days, while giving military or overseas voters the chance to
do so, leads to unequal treatment.
top

Court lets stand telecom immunity in wiretap case

Legal Insight 2012/10/12 10:43   Bookmark and Share
The Supreme Court is leaving in place a federal law that gives telecommunications companies legal immunity for helping the government with its email and telephone eavesdropping program.

The justices said Tuesday they will not review a court ruling that upheld the 2008 law against challenges brought by privacy and civil liberties advocates on behalf of the companies' customers. The companies include AT&T, Inc., Sprint Nextel Corp. and Verizon Communications Inc.

Lawsuits filed by the American Civil Liberties Union and Electronic Frontier Foundation accused the companies of violating the law and customers' privacy through collaboration with the National Security Agency on intelligence gathering.

The case stemmed from surveillance rules passed by Congress that included protection from legal liability for telecommunications companies that allegedly helped the U.S. spy on Americans without warrants.

top

Court dismisses investor lawsuits against Porsche

Legal Insight 2012/09/20 15:53   Bookmark and Share
Wednesday's ruling by Braunschweig state court in northern Germany appears to strengthen Porsche's position, which still faces other court battles in connection with the 2008 takeover bid, German news agency dapd reported.

Two investors in the Braunschweig case had sought $6.1 million in damages claiming that Porsche published misleading information while it was secretly trying to take control of the much-larger Volkswagen.

Porsche's bid failed amid an unsustainable debt burden and the collapse of financial markets following the Lehman Brothers bankruptcy, eventually leading Volkswagen to take full control of Porsche.
top

Ohio man pleads guilty to scamming storm victims

Legal Insight 2012/08/29 10:39   Bookmark and Share
A man accused of ripping off storm victims in Ohio and Kentucky has pleaded guilty to nine counts of theft.

Ohio Attorney General Mike DeWine said Joshua Salyers entered the guilty pleas in Hamilton County court in southern Ohio Tuesday. He admitted stealing more than $43,000 from the victims.

DeWine spokesman Mark Moretti said the 39-year-old Salyers ran a storm damage restoration business and took money from homeowners in Butler, Hamilton and Stark counties in Ohio and in Campbell County, Ky., to repair their homes after storms in 2010 and in 2011.

But Moretti said Salyers never began the work and refused to refund the money.
top

Court overturns $1M award against U of M, Smith

Legal Insight 2012/08/10 12:19   Bookmark and Share
The Minnesota Supreme Court has overturned a $1 million award against the University of Minnesota and men's basketball coach Tubby Smith over the hiring of an assistant coach.

Jimmy Williams quit his job as an assistant coach at Oklahoma State in 2007 because he believed Smith had hiring authority when he offered him an assistant coaching job. Minnesota later withdrew the offer because Williams had NCAA rules violations during a previous stint as an assistant for the Golden Gophers more than 20 years ago.

Williams sued, and a Hennepin County jury and the state appeals court sided with him. But the Minnesota Supreme Court on Wednesday reversed those decisions, saying Williams was not entitled to protection against negligent misrepresentations from Smith about his hiring authority.

top

Gay marriage ban backers seek Supreme Court review

Legal Insight 2012/08/03 11:54   Bookmark and Share
Backers of California's ban on same-sex marriages asked the U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday to overrule a federal appeals court that struck down the measure as unconstitutional, a move that means the bitter, four-year court fight over Proposition 8 could soon be resolved.

Lawyers for the coalition of religious conservative groups that sponsored the voter-approved ban petitioned the Supreme Court to review the lower court's finding that the 2008 amendment to the state constitution violated the civil rights of gay and lesbian Californians. The request had been expected since a panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals issued its 2-1 decision earlier this year.

If the high court declines to take the case, it would clear the way for same-sex marriages to resume in California. Gay couples could get married in the state for several months before Proposition 8 passed, a right the measure was designed to take away. Same-sex couples still have the rights and benefits of marriage controlled by state law if they register as domestic partners.

The divided appeals court panel cited those conditions, which were unique to California at the time, as grounds for striking down the ban as a violation of the U.S. Constitution's promise of equal protection. But it also went out of its way to state it was not saying similar bans in six other states it oversees were inherently unconstitutional.
top









Disclaimer: Nothing posted on this blog is intended, nor should be construed, as legal advice. Blog postings and hosted comments are available for general educational purposes only and should not be used to assess a specific legal situation. Nothing submitted as a comment is confidential. Nor does any comment on a blog post create an attorney-client relationship. The presence of hyperlinks to other third-party websites does not imply that the firm endorses those websites.

Affordable Law Firm Website Design