Add To Favorites
Judge rejects effort to block Confederate statue's removal
Attorney News | 2017/05/11 16:13
A last-ditch effort to block the removal of a monument to a Confederate general in New Orleans was rejected Wednesday by a Louisiana judge who turned away arguments that the city doesn't own the statue or the land on which it sits.

"This has gone on an inordinate amount of time," Judge Kern Reese said as he outlined reasons for his refusal to grant an injunction protecting the statue of Gen. P.G.T Beauregard. It was a reference to state and federal court battles that delayed removal of the Beauregard monument and three others for more than a year.

The huge bronze image of Beauregard on horseback sits in the center of a traffic circle at the entrance to New Orleans City Park. Those who don't want it removed argued that it belongs to a park board and, therefore, the city has no authority to remove it.

Reese's rejection of an injunction means the city can remove the statue pending further proceedings in his court. Richard Marksbury, a New Orleans resident and monument supporter, said he may go to an appeal court to block removal.

The Beauregard statue, a statue of Gen. Robert E. Lee and one of Confederate President Jefferson Davis are slated for removal. A fourth structure, the Liberty Place monument, was removed late last month. It honored whites who battled a biracial Reconstruction-era government in New Orleans.

The Liberty Place monument was taken down without advance notice in the dead of night by workers in masks and body armor. City officials have been secretive about removal plans due to threats of violence against those tasked with taking down the structures.

In Reese's court, Franklin Jones, an attorney for Marksbury, cited documents asserting that the independent, state-supervised board that oversees City Park owns the Beauregard statue and the tract of land on which it sits. Adam Swensek, an assistant city attorney, noted court precedents holding otherwise and said delays in removing the monuments only prolong a controversy that has resulted in tense confrontations between pro- and anti-monument groups at monument sites.


New Mexico Supreme Court won't restore funds to Legislature
Court News | 2017/05/11 16:13
The New Mexico Supreme Court on Thursday rejected a request to override budget vetoes, leaving negotiations about how to solve the state's budget crisis — and restore funding to the Legislature — in the hands of the governor and lawmakers.

In a two-page order, the court said it was too soon to consider any possible constitutional violations related to Gov. Susana Martinez's vetoes of all funding for the Legislature and state universities in the coming fiscal year.

The order said the Legislature's lawsuit was "not ripe for review," siding with attorneys for the governor who cautioned justices against an abuse of their judicial power.

The Republican governor has called a special session for May 24 in an attempt to resolve the state budget crisis linked to faltering tax revenues and a weak state economy.

The Democratic-led Legislature had argued that Martinez overstepped her authority by defunding the legislative branch of government and all state institutions of higher education.

Martinez had urged the state Supreme Court to stay out of budget negotiations and said her vetoes were made in pursuit of reductions to state spending and never sought to abolish the Legislature.

Thursday's ruling sent lawmakers and the governor back to the negotiating table with no signs of agreement on how to shore up wobbly state finances.

"We need to have a little love, and there is not much love going around right now," said Republican Sen. Bill Sharer, R-Farmington, describing distrust that stands in the way of a budget deal and related tax reforms.

For the upcoming special session, Martinez has outlined rough proposals to restore most vetoed funding for the fiscal year starting July 1. Democratic lawmakers say the proposals are linked to untenable tax revenue increases on nonprofits and food.

The governor's office issued a statement praising the court decision and prodding legislative leaders to abandon a proposed tax increase on gasoline sales designed to shore up state finances.


Indiana high court: Immigration status inadmissible at trial
Headline Legal News | 2017/05/07 04:33
The immigration status of a Mexican native who is suing over lost wages in a workplace injury case should not be considered at trial because it can cause unfair prejudice, the Indiana Supreme Court has ruled.

The state's high court reversed a lower court ruling that the immigration status of Noe Escamilla was admissible in his lawsuit against an Indianapolis construction company. Escamilla, who entered the U.S. illegally from Mexico with his parents at age 15, married a U.S. citizen and has three children who are also American citizens, his attorney has said.

"Indiana's tort trials should be about making injured parties whole — not about federal immigration policies and laws," the high court said in a 5-0 ruling written by Chief Justice Loretta Rush and issued Thursday.

Escamilla sued Shiel Sexton Co. Inc. for lost future wages after he slipped on ice in 2010 and severely injured his back while helping to lift a heavy masonry capstone at Wabash College in Crawfordsville. Court documents say a doctor found Escamilla's injury left him unable to lift more than 20 pounds, effectively ending his career as a masonry laborer.

Because Escamilla is a lawful resident of Mexico, Shiel Sexton argued that any lost wages he is able to claim should be based on the rate of pay available in Mexico, and not U.S. wages. A Montgomery County trial court ruled in Shiel Sexton's favor, finding that two witnesses who reviewed Escamilla's U.S. tax returns could not testify about his lost earnings and that his immigration status could be entered as evidence.


Court revives black TV network's discrimination lawsuit
Headline Legal News | 2017/05/05 04:32
A federal appeals court has revived a lawsuit claiming that a North Carolina city discriminated against an African-American-owned television network.

A divided three-judge panel of the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on Friday reversed a lower court decision that dismissed the lawsuit against the City of Greensboro.


Black Network Television claims the city rescinded a $300,000 economic development loan because of race. The city says race had nothing to do with it.

Senior Judge Andre Davis wrote that the network provided enough evidence to make its discrimination claim plausible.

Judge Harvie Wilkinson III said in his dissent that the network presented "nothing more than bare speculation" that race impacted the city's decision.

Greensboro could ask the full court to hear the case. City attorneys didn't immediately return messages Friday.


[PREV] [1][2][3][4][5][6].. [356] [NEXT]








All
Legal News
Law Firm News
Attorney News
Headline Legal News
Lawyer Blog Post
Videos for Legal Insight
Legal Business
Court News
Court Watch
Legal Interview
Topics in Legal News
Press Release
Opinions
Legal Marketing
Politics & Legal
Law School News
Court likely to question if Trump's ..
High court could soon signal view on..
South Dakota and Flandreau Santee Si..
Appeal in boy's burp arrest case rel..
New Mexico Supreme Court won't resto..
Judge rejects effort to block Confed..
Indiana high court: Immigration stat..
Court revives black TV network's dis..
Joaquin 'El Chapo' Guzman returns to..
Top Kansas Court to Revisit Death Pe..
Supreme Court says cities can sue ba..
Court: Gay couple's suit against Ken..
Connecticut court takes up doctor-pa..
Idaho Judicial Council accepting app..
4th Arkansas inmate executed in 8 da..
Trump repeats criticism of court tha..
Fresno killings suspect shouts out d..
White officer headed to court ahead ..
Supreme Court bans Jehovah's Witness..
   Lawyer & Law Firm Links
Canton Criminal Lawyer
Canton DUI lawyer
www.cantoncriminalattorney.com
Bankruptcy Attorney Eugene
Eugene Bankruptcy Attorney
www.willamettevalleybankruptcy.com
Personal Injury Website Designs
www.webpromo.com
Oregon Family Law Attorney
Divorce Lawyer Eugene. Family Law
www.mjmlawoffice.com
New York Adoption Lawyers
New York Foster Care Lawyers
Adoption Pre-Certification
www.lawrsm.com
  Facebook/lawfirmwebdesign
 
 
Disclaimer: The content contained on the web site has been prepared by legalmarketinginsight.com as a service to the internet community and is not intended to constitute legal advice or a substitute for consultation with a licensed legal professional in a particular case or circumstance. Blog postings and hosted comments are available for general educational purposes only and should not be used to assess a specific legal situation. The Legal Marketing Firm is a specialized internet marketing agency that has been providing the legal community with internet legal marketing services. Law Firm Website Design by Legal Web Design That Works