|
|
|
Alamo seeks removal of religious language in suit
Legal Information |
2008/12/23 09:16
|
| A lawyer for jailed evangelist Tony Alamo asked a federal court Tuesday to remove religious references from a lawsuit against his client, saying they have the potential to draw the court into theological debate to decide the case.pJohn Hall of Little Rock said in a court filing that claims made by two former members of the Tony Alamo Christian Ministries were based on religious beliefs and not matters for argument in a court of law./ppHall gave as examples claims that Alamo engaged in practices to intimidate church members by withholding food, marrying young girls and performing severe beatings. Hall said Alamo's defense to each of these allegations was based largely on the Bible, and the filing cites numerous biblical passages./ppAll of these fall within the ambit of defendant's religious beliefs, the filing says./ppThe suit, filed Nov. 25 in federal district court at Texarkana, claims that Seth Calagna and Spencer Ondrisek were beaten and subjected to abuse as teenagers in the church. The suit says the former church members, now adults, suffered physical pain, emotional distress, scarring and disfigurement. It seeks more than $75,000 in damages./p |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Justices chide California-based appeals court
Legal Information |
2008/12/03 18:53
|
| The Supreme Court took aim at one of its favorite targets Tuesday, criticizing a California-based federal appeals court for its ruling in favor of a criminal defendant.pThe justices threw out a decision by the San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in the case of Michael Robert Pulido, who was convicted for his role in robbing a gas station and killing the defendant./ppA U.S. District Court judge set aside Pulido's conviction because the trial judge in the case gave the jury improper instructions./ppThe high court said in an unsigned opinion that the appeals court ruling affirming the federal judge's action used faulty reasoning. The justices did not reinstate Pulido's conviction./ppJustices John Paul Stevens, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and David Souter agreed that the appeals court made a mistake, but would have affirmed its ruling anyway because the underlying decision in favor of Pulido was correct./ppLast month, the court overruled the 9th Circuit in an environmental case involving the Navy's use of sonar and its potential harm to whales./ppThe case is Hedgpeth v. Pulido, 07-544. /p |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Paralyzed Calif. man loses high court appeal
Legal Information |
2008/11/17 18:50
|
| A paralyzed man who has sued hundreds of businesses over accommodations for the disabled lost his Supreme Court appeal Monday to get out from under a court order requiring special permission to file new lawsuits.pJarek Molski has been labeled a vexatious litigant by federal courts in California because he has filed roughly 400 lawsuits alleging that restaurants and other businesses are in violation of the federal Americans with Disabilities Act. Molski is paralyzed from the chest down and uses a wheelchair./ppThe justices rejected his case without comment./ppMolski frequently complains about the lack of handicapped van parking, counters that are too high, narrow doorways and grab-bars installed too high or low in bathrooms. In addition, he often says he was injured in the course of his visit. Targeted business owners often have settled out of court rather than pay attorneys and take the time to fight the lawsuits./ppA federal judge in Los Angeles described the lawsuits as extortion. The San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the ruling that Molski was an abusive litigant, although it noted that many of the establishments he sued probably were violating federal law./ppOn the other hand, the district court had ample basis to conclude that Molski trumped up his claims of injury, the appeals court said./ppThe case is Molski v. Evergreen Dynasty Corp., 08-38. /p |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Supreme Court wrestles with TV profanity case
Legal Information |
2008/11/04 14:07
|
| The Supreme Court spent an hour on Tuesday talking about dirty words on television without once using any or making plain how it would decide whether the government could ban them.pThe dispute between the broadcast networks and the Federal Communications Commission is the court's first major broadcast indecency case in 30 years./ppAt issue is the FCC's policy, adopted in 2004, that even a one-time use of profanity on live television is indecent because some words are so offensive that they always evoke sexual or excretory images. So-called fleeting expletives were not treated as indecent before then./ppThe words in question begin with the letters F and S. The Associated Press typically does not use them./ppChief Justice John Roberts, the only justice with young children at home, suggested that the commission's policy is reasonable. The use of either word, Roberts said, is associated with sexual or excretory activity. That's what gives it its force./ppJustice John Paul Stevens, who appeared skeptical of the policy, doubted that the f-word always conveys a sexual image./p |
|
|
|
|
|
Law Firm News RSS Feed
