|
|
|
Black Public Defenders Sue Atlanta
Law Firm Press Release |
2008/06/05 07:51
|
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. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
9th Circuit Halts Logging In Sierra Nevada Forest
Law Firm Press Release |
2008/05/15 07:39
|
The 9th Circuit has blocked the government's plan to log parts of the Sierra Nevada forest, rejecting the U.S. Forest Service's argument that it needs to cut and sell large trees in order to raise money for forest-fire prevention.
Sierra Forest Legacy and the state of California appealed the denial of an injunction against the Forest Service to ban the cutting of larger trees, in which several wildlife species thrive. Environmentalists claimed that the agency's plan to sell off trees to cover the costs of fire prevention failed to comply with the National Environmental Policy Act.
The Forest Service shirked its duty to rigorously explore and objectively evaluate all reasonable alternatives to logging in the Basin, Empire and Slapjack sites of the Sierra Nevada forests, plaintiffs claimed.
In one sale, a fire hazard can be removed and the USFS paid so that it can remove the fuel of future fires, Judge Noonan wrote, acknowledging the seeming practicality of the plan. Two for one always has an attractive ring. But are there no alternative ways of getting money to do the clearing that is imperative? Obviously, there may be.
Noonan suggested that the mere existence of a lumber-for-funds plan indicates that Congress needs to step in and provide more funding for forest fire prevention. Plaintiffs suggested other alternatives, including reprioritizing other funding and altering the Forest Service's fuel treatment program.
So long as the alternatives remain unexamined, the agency's plan violates federal law, Noonan wrote.
The court stressed that it was not deciding the merits of the case, but ruling that the government's choice of funding for fire reduction does not outweigh the state's preservation interests.
nbsp; |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Supreme Court rules magistrates may preside
Law Firm Press Release |
2008/05/15 07:36
|
pThe US Supreme Court ruled Monday in Gonzalez v. United States that allowing a magistrate judge to oversee jury selection does not deprive a criminal defendant of the right to a jury trial and complies with the Federal Magistrates Act. The holding affirmed a judgment of the US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit that defendant's counsel may waive the right to have an Article III judge preside over voir dire, and that it was not error to proceed without first getting the defendant's personal consent. Justice Kennedy announced the judgment of the Court; his opinion was joined by Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg, Breyer, and Alito. Justice Scalia filed an opinion concurring in the judgment, and Justice Thomas wrote a dissent. /ppIn affirming the Fifth Circuit ruling, Justice Kennedy wrote: /ppNumerous choices affecting conduct of the trial, including the objections to make, the witnesses to call, and the arguments to advance, depend not only upon what is permissible under the rules of evidence and procedure but also upon tactical considerations of the moment and the larger strategic plan for the trial. These matters can be difficult to explain to a layperson; and to require in all instances that they be approved by the client could risk compromising the efficiencies and fairness that the trial process is designed to promote.
In a separate concurrence, Justice Scalia agreed with the conclusion but not with the reasoning upon which it was based. He wrote: /ppI would not adopt the tactical-vs.-fundamental approach, which is vague and derives from nothing more substantial than this Court’s say-so./ppIn his dissent, Justice Thomas advocated overruling the precedents for the decision and wrote:
Where, as here, a mistaken interpretation of a statute leaves the Court with no principled way to answer subsequent questions that arise under the statute, it seems to me that the better course is simply to acknowledge and correct the error.
/p |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Makers of Paxil, Zoloft Win
Law Firm Press Release |
2008/04/25 07:48
|
pIn a significant victory for drug manufacturers, the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled that the makers of Paxil and Zoloft cannot be sued for failing to warn of a risk of suicide because the Food amp; Drug Administration has explicitly refused to order such warnings.
Voting 2-1 in a pair of cases where the lower courts issued conflicting rulings, the 3rd Circuit found that such lawsuits must be pre-empted because they directly conflict with action already taken by the FDA. /ppWriting for the majority, 3rd Circuit Judge Dolores K. Sloviter said the FDA has actively monitored the possible risk of suicide from taking the class of antidepressant drugs known as selective serotonin re-uptake inhibitors, or SSRIs, for two decades, and concluded that the suicide warnings demanded by plaintiffs are without scientific basis and would therefore be false and misleading. /ppBut Sloviter, who was joined by visiting Judge Jane A. Restani of the U.S. Court of International Trade, emphasized that the ruling was a narrow one. /ppOur holding is limited to circumstances in which the FDA has publicly rejected the need for a warning that plaintiffs argue state law requires, Sloviter wrote in Colacicco v. Apotex Inc. /ppIn dissent, 3rd Circuit Judge Thomas L. Ambro said he would have allowed both cases to go forward. /p |
|
|
|
|
|
Law Firm News RSS Feed
