|
|
|
Supreme Court to hear car search, tribal land cases
Law Firm News |
2008/02/25 11:21
|
| The US Supreme Court on Monday agreed to hear three cases, including Arizona v. Gant (07-542) where the Court will consider whether the Fourth Amendment requires law enforcement officers to demonstrate a threat to their safety or a need to preserve evidence related to the crime of arrest in order to justify a warrantless vehicular search incident to arrest conducted after the vehicle's recent occupants have been arrested and secured? Arizona is appealing an Arizona Supreme Court ruling that Rodney Joseph Gant's constitutional rights were violated when police searched his car after he was handcuffed and seated in a polialso heard oral arguments in Warner-Lambert v. Kent, 06-1498, where the Court considered whether federal law preempts a Michigan law that allows personal injury lawsuits against prescription drug manufacturers only when the drug at issue was approved by the US Food and Drug Administration based on the fraudulent submission or withholding of information./p |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Top U.S. court backs S.F. health care
Law Firm News |
2008/02/23 13:45
|
| The U.S. Supreme Court allowed San Francisco on Thursday to continue requiring employers to pay part of the cost of providing health care to uninsured residents while a group of restaurant owners tries to overturn the program.pJustice Anthony Kennedy denied a request by the Golden Gate Restaurant Association to suspend the employer contributions while the case awaits an April 17 hearing before an appellate panel. /ppThe city expanded its health care program six weeks ago after winning a ruling from the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco. That court allowed city officials to require large and medium-size companies to provide insurance to their employees, at spending levels set by the city, or pay a fee to support care for the uninsured at 22 hospitals and clinics./ppThe expansion lets San Francisco phase in coverage for about 26,000 residents who were not previously eligible for subsidized care. The city says the program will ultimately cover all 73,000 adult residents who are not poor enough for Medi-Cal or old enough for Medicare. About 12,500 people have enrolled so far, program Director Tangerine Brigham said Thursday./p |
|
|
|
|
|
|
US court rules for Medtronic, bars some state suits
Legal World News |
2008/02/20 13:46
|
| pThe U.S. Supreme Court handed a victory to Medtronic Inc on Wednesday, ruling that patients cannot sue medical-device manufacturers in state court over harm from a device that has approval from federal regulators./ppBy an 8-1 vote, the court ruled a 1976 law creating federal safety oversight for medical devices bars state-law claims challenging safety or effectiveness of devices that have won premarket approval from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration./ppThe decision was the Supreme Court's first ruling on the legal effect of the FDA's approval of a medical device on liability lawsuits, Medtronic said./ppThe ruling could benefit other device makers, who have argued that the FDA's judgment that a product is safe and effective should protect companies from being sued for liability in state court./ppThe Medtronic case involved a New York man who was injured in 1996 when a doctor inflated a balloon catheter during an artery-clearing procedure./ppMedtronic has said the doctor in the case used the catheter contrary to labeling instructions and in a patient for whom it was not recommended. The company no longer makes that specific catheter./ppA federal trial court in Albany, New York, dismissed the lawsuit, finding the patient was not entitled to state law remedies because of the FDA's prior approval of the device./ppA U.S. appeals court agreed that the lawsuit was pre-empted by federal law, and the Supreme Court upheld that decision. /p |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Top US court rejects spying case
Legal World News |
2008/02/19 13:48
|
pThe US Supreme Court has dismissed a legal challenge to a domestic anti-terrorism eavesdropping programme.
President George W Bush authorised the monitoring, without a court order, of international phone calls and e-mails of US citizens after the 9/11 attacks. /ppThe American Civil Liberties Union argued that Mr Bush did not have the constitutional authority to order the programme, which ended last year. /ppThe Supreme Court gave no explanation for its ruling. /ppstrongLegality questioned/strong pThe domestic spying programme was denounced by Democrats and rights activists when it was disclosed in 2005. pA group of civil liberties activists, journalists, academics and lawyers challenged the spying programme in the courts, arguing it violated a 1978 rule prohibiting surveillance of American citizens on US soil without a warrant. pIn July last year, an appeals court struck down a lower court's ruling that found the programme to be unconstitutional. pThe appeals court, based in Cincinnati, dismissed the case because the plaintiffs had failed to show that their communications had been monitored. pBut the Cincinnati judges did not rule on the legality or otherwise of the programme. pThe president rejected claims that he broke the law by ordering surveillance without first securing warrants. He argued the eavesdropping programme was necessary and was targeted against al-Qaeda. pThe Bush administration has so far refused to release documents about the programme that might reveal who was under surveillance. /pp
/p |
|
|
|
|
|
Law Firm News RSS Feed
