Add To Favorites
S. Korean court says worker's rare disease linked to Samsung
Videos for Legal Insight | 2017/08/28 08:57
South Korea's Supreme Court said a former worker in a Samsung LCD factory who was diagnosed with multiple sclerosis should be recognized as having an occupationally caused disease, overturning lower court verdicts that held a lack of evidence against the worker.

In a milestone decision that could aid other sickened tech workers struggling to prove the origin of their diseases, the Supreme Court ruled there was a significant link between Lee Hee-jin's disease and workplace hazards and her working conditions.

Lower courts had denied her claim, partly because no records of her workplace conditions were publicly available. The Labor Ministry and Samsung refused to disclose them when a lower court requested the information, citing trade secrets.

In its ruling Tuesday, the court said the lack of evidence, resulting from Samsung's refusal to provide the information and an inadequate investigation by the government, should not be held against the sickened worker.

Instead, it said, such special circumstances should be considered in favor of the worker.

Lee, 33, began to work at a Samsung LCD factory in Cheonan, south of Seoul, in 2002 when she was a high school senior. She evaluated nearly one hundred display panels per hour on a conveyor belt, looking for defective panels and wiping them with isopropyl alcohol. She worked next to assembly lines that used other chemicals.

Three years after she joined Samsung Electronics, she first reported the symptoms of multiple sclerosis, a rare disease that affects the central nervous system. The average age of reporting multiple sclerosis in South Korea is 38. She left Samsung in 2007.

Lee first filed a claim in 2010 with a government agency, which denied her request for compensation. She took her case to the courts and lost twice before Tuesday's victory.



Supreme Court justice blocks ruling on redrawing Texas districts
Videos for Legal Insight | 2017/08/26 08:58
U.S. Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito on Monday temporarily halted enforcement of a lower-court ruling that required two Texas congressional districts to be redrawn.

Responding to an appeal by Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, Alito halted action on the order and gave those who challenged the districts until Sept. 5 to address the points raised by Paxton’s appeal.

Sept. 5 is the day the three-judge court was to hold a hearing in San Antonio on redrawing the districts, including one based in Travis County and another that includes Bastrop County.

The court ruled two weeks ago that the districts were created by the Republican-controlled Legislature to intentionally discriminate against minority voters, who tend to favor Democrats.


Top NC court weighs lawmakers stripping of governor's powers

North Carolina's highest court on Monday tackled the question of how far the Republican-led legislature can go to minimize new Democratic Gov. Roy Cooper's ability to pursue goals that helped him get elected last year by reshaping state government.

The state Supreme Court heard arguments in a lawsuit brought by Cooper that claims legislators violated North Carolina's constitution this spring by passing a law diminishing the governor's role in managing elections.

It's the first time the high court has waded into the ongoing political battle between lawmakers and Cooper that began after he narrowly beat incumbent Republican Gov. Pat McCrory last November. GOP lawmakers have sought to diminish Cooper's powers ever since.

The governor's lawyers told the seven-member court that the General Assembly violated the constitution's separation of powers requirement by reshaping the state elections board in ways that entrench Republican advantage. Elections boards are examples of the types of bodies that implement laws, functions that the state constitution requires from governors.


Finnish court releases Iraqi twins in IS-related killings
Videos for Legal Insight | 2017/05/25 09:21
A Finnish court has thrown out charges against Iraqi twin brothers of taking part in Islamic State-related killings of at least 11 unarmed soldiers.

The Pirkanmaa District Court says the two who were not identified, were set free on Wednesday.

The court in Tampere, southern Finland, said the evidence against them was too weak. It included testimonies from other asylum-seekers, a video footage of the massacre by IS militants and information from an Iraqi investigative commission.

State prosecutors had demanded life sentences and claimed the brothers took part in atrocities committed by IS militants at a military base outside Tikrit in June 2014 when some 1,700 Iraqi army soldiers were slain.

The brothers arrived in Finland in September 2015 and were arrested three months later.


US appeals court upholds Maryland assault weapons ban
Videos for Legal Insight | 2017/02/23 14:10
Maryland's ban on 45 kinds of assault weapons and its 10-round limit on gun magazines were upheld Tuesday by a federal appeals court in a decision that met with a strongly worded dissent.

In a 10-4 ruling, the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond, Va., said the guns banned under Maryland's law aren't protected by the Second Amendment.

"Put simply, we have no power to extend Second Amendment protections to weapons of war," Judge Robert King wrote for the court, adding that the Supreme Court's decision in District of Columbia v. Heller explicitly excluded such coverage.

Maryland Attorney General Brian Frosh, who led the push for the law in 2013 as a state senator, said it's "unthinkable that these weapons of war, weapons that caused the carnage in Newtown and in other communities across the country, would be protected by the Second Amendment."

"It's a very strong opinion, and it has national significance, both because it's en-banc and for the strength of its decision," Frosh said, noting that all of the court's judges participated.

Judge William Traxler issued a dissent. By concluding the Second Amendment doesn't even apply, Traxler wrote, the majority "has gone to greater lengths than any other court to eviscerate the constitutionally guaranteed right to keep and bear arms." He also wrote that the court did not apply a strict enough review on the constitutionality of the law.


[PREV] [1][2][3][4][5].. [6] [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
Ohio court sets 2022 execution date ..
Kenya Supreme Court says why it annu..
California hits Gatorade in court fo..
Court: Utility, not gov't responsibl..
Court asked to dismiss cases tied to..
Access to license-plate data may be ..
Indiana high court hearing appeal in..
Court: Cherokee Freedmen have right ..
S. Korean court says worker's rare d..
Israeli protesters erect golden stat..
Supreme Court justice blocks ruling ..
South Korean court sentences Samsung..
Court file: Michigan girl who killed..
Judge refuses to end Roman Polanski ..
Kentucky governor, attorney general ..
French Designer Wins Court Case in D..
Maryland removes Dred Scott ruling a..
Supreme Court Justice Sotomayor to s..
DJ says taking Taylor Swift to court..
   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. Small Law Firm Website Design by Legal Web Design That Works