|
|
|
Italian court convicts 7 for no quake warning
Law Firm News |
2012/10/27 13:44
|
Defying assertions that earthquakes cannot be predicted, an Italian court convicted seven scientists and experts of manslaughter Monday for failing to adequately warn residents before a temblor struck central Italy in 2009 and killed more than 300 people.
The court in L'Aquila also sentenced the defendants to six years each in prison. All are members of the national Great Risks Commission, and several are prominent scientists or geological and disaster experts.
Scientists had decried the trial as ridiculous, contending that science has no reliable way of predicting earthquakes. So news of the verdict shook the tightknit community of earthquake experts worldwide.
It's a sad day for science, said seismologist Susan Hough, of the U.S. Geological Survey in Pasadena, Calif. It's unsettling. That fellow seismic experts in Italy were singled out in the case hits you in the gut, Hough added.
In Italy, convictions aren't definitive until after at least one level of appeals, so it is unlikely any of the defendants would face jail immediately.
Other Italian public officials and experts have been put on trial for earthquake-triggered damage, such as the case in southern Italy for the collapse of a school in a 2002 quake in which 27 children and a teacher were killed. But that case centered on allegations of shoddy construction of buildings in quake-prone areas. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Feds seek full court review of cigarette warnings
Law Firm News |
2012/10/10 13:05
|
The U.S. government is asking a federal appeals court to rehear a challenge to a Food and Drug Administration requirement that tobacco companies to put large graphic health warnings on cigarette packages to show that smoking can disfigure and even kill people.
The Justice Department filed a petition Tuesday asking for the full court to rehear the case after a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals in Washington affirmed in August a lower court ruling blocking the mandate, saying it ran afoul of the First Amendment's free speech protections. However, the court rarely grants such appeals.
Some of the nation's largest tobacco companies, including R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., sued to block the mandate to include warnings to show the dangers of smoking and encouraging smokers to quit lighting up. They argued that the proposed warnings went beyond factual information into anti-smoking advocacy. The government argued the photos of dead and diseased smokers are factual. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Court grants appeals from 2 people without lawyers
Law Firm News |
2012/09/27 15:38
|
Well-heeled clients pay tens of thousands of dollars to hit the legal jackpot — Supreme Court review of their appeals. But on Tuesday, the court decided to hear cases filed by two people who couldn't afford or didn't bother to hire an attorney.
One was written in pencil and submitted by an inmate at a federal prison in Pennsylvania. The other was filed by a man with no telephone living on Guam.
Neither case seems destined to join the ranks of Gideon v. Wainwright, the landmark 1960s case filed by a prisoner with no lawyer that established a criminal defendant's right to a lawyer. Both show, however, that when the court is looking to resolve finicky legal issues and the right case shows up, it doesn't matter whether the author of the appeal wears a natty suit or prison garb.
Longtime Supreme Court practitioner Tom Goldstein called the granting of two such lawyerless cases at the same time unheard of. But both cases chosen by the justices will help resolve the ability of civilians to sue the government over claims of improper actions of federal and military employees on the job.
Kim Lee Millbrook, a prisoner at the federal prison in Lewisburg, Pa., sued the government after accusing prison guards at the Special Management Unit of sexually assaulting him in May 2010. Prison officials said Millbrook's claim was unsubstantiated. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pa. city's immigration rules back in US court
Law Firm News |
2012/08/15 11:04
|
The dispute over a northeast Pennsylvania city's attempt to crack down on illegal immigrants is back before a federal appeals court Wednesday.
The six-year case involving Hazleton returns to the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals because of a recent Supreme Court ruling.
The city rules would fine landlords who rent to illegal immigrants and deny business permits to companies that employ them. A companion piece requires tenants to register with City Hall and pay for a rental permit.
But they've all been on hold since a federal judge struck them down, and the federal appeals court affirmed the decision, saying they usurp the federal government's power to regulate immigration.
Now a mixed decision from the Supreme Court in a related case in Arizona is sending the Pennsylvania case back to court. |
|
|
|
|
|
Law Firm News RSS Feed
