The Supreme Court appeared divided Monday in two cases in which businesses are trying to make it harder for customers or investors to band together to sue them.
The justices heard arguments in appeals from biotech company Amgen Inc. and cable provider Comcast Corp. that seek to shut down class-action lawsuits against the businesses.
Amgen is fighting securities fraud claims that misstatements about two of its drugs used to treat anemia artificially inflated its stock price. Comcast is facing a lawsuit from customers who say the company's monopoly in parts of the Philadelphia area allowed it to raise prices unfairly.
Last year, the Supreme Court raised the bar for some class-action suits when it sided with Wal-Mart against up to 1.6 million of its female employees who complained of sex discrimination. In the Wal-Mart case, the court said there were too many women in too many jobs at the nation's largest private employer to wrap into one lawsuit.
Class actions increase pressure on businesses to settle suits because of the cost of defending them and the potential for very large judgments.
Connecticut pension funds that sued Amgen said lower courts correctly ruled that the case could move forward as a class action. The issue at the Supreme Court is whether the pension funds have to show at an early stage of the lawsuit that Amgen's claims about the safety and effectiveness of the drugs Aranesp and Epogen affected the stock price.
Several justices indicated they had no problem with the idea that, unlike in the Wal-Mart case, all the Amgen investors were in the same boat and could clear an early hurdle that tripped up the Wal-Mart employees.
Thursday, November 8, 2012
Wednesday, October 17, 2012
Indiana Product Liability Lawyers
Product liability can become a complex issue. When consumers buy products, they have the right to feel they are taking safe drugs made for intended use. However, this is not always the case. Price Waicukauski & Riley, LLC, in Indianapolis, Indiana, has experienced and knowledgeable products liability lawyers to help you pursue your claim, whether it is big or small.
Because it is very difficult and expensive to prove that a product is defective, many attorneys simply refuse to handle such cases. Product liability cases require extra time, effort, study, and analysis. These cases must be handled by an attorney familiar and experienced in handling products liability cases, not just general personal injury cases.
The attorneys at Price Waicukauski & Riley, LLC, have litigated product liability cases involving many different kinds of products from pharmaceutical drugs to machine tools and have included Vioxx, asbestos and mesothelioma cases.
We sometimes combat the complexity and expense in handling product liability cases by filing class action suits. Whether the matter is a class action or an individual suit, we look for full and fair compensation for each client who has been hurt by a defective product.
What is considered a Product Liability Case?
If a dangerous or defective product that you have purchased or borrowed, or a medication prescribed for your use has injured you or a family member, you may have a legitimate products liability claim against the manufacturer or seller of that product.
Contact Us for a Complimentary Consultation
Our Indiana products liability lawyers welcome the opportunity to put their expertise in products liability litigation to work for you and your family. If you would like to discuss your potential case with us, please contact us for a free initial consultation to find out how one of our products liability attorneys can help you. For more information on how we can help visit us online at http://www.price-law.com/practice-areas/products-liability
Because it is very difficult and expensive to prove that a product is defective, many attorneys simply refuse to handle such cases. Product liability cases require extra time, effort, study, and analysis. These cases must be handled by an attorney familiar and experienced in handling products liability cases, not just general personal injury cases.
The attorneys at Price Waicukauski & Riley, LLC, have litigated product liability cases involving many different kinds of products from pharmaceutical drugs to machine tools and have included Vioxx, asbestos and mesothelioma cases.
We sometimes combat the complexity and expense in handling product liability cases by filing class action suits. Whether the matter is a class action or an individual suit, we look for full and fair compensation for each client who has been hurt by a defective product.
What is considered a Product Liability Case?
If a dangerous or defective product that you have purchased or borrowed, or a medication prescribed for your use has injured you or a family member, you may have a legitimate products liability claim against the manufacturer or seller of that product.
Contact Us for a Complimentary Consultation
Our Indiana products liability lawyers welcome the opportunity to put their expertise in products liability litigation to work for you and your family. If you would like to discuss your potential case with us, please contact us for a free initial consultation to find out how one of our products liability attorneys can help you. For more information on how we can help visit us online at http://www.price-law.com/practice-areas/products-liability
Monday, August 6, 2012
New DC drunken driving law to take effect
A new law that toughens penalties for drunken driving in the nation's capital takes effect Wednesday, but the city's police department still is not using breath tests on suspected drunken drivers more than a year after the tests were suspended.
The new law, which was approved by the D.C. Council and signed by Mayor Vincent Gray earlier this summer. It doubles mandatory minimum jail terms for people with blood-alcohol concentrations of .20 percent or higher and establishes a blood-alcohol limit of .04 percent for commercial drivers, including taxi drivers.
The law also establishes new oversight for the district's breath-testing program. But there's still no timetable to the resumption of breath tests, which D.C. police stopped using in February 2011 in the wake of revelations that their breath-testing devices had produced inaccurate results. Police have been using urine and blood tests instead.
A year earlier, District of Columbia officials had notified defense lawyers about nearly 400 drunken-driving convictions that relied, at least party, on inaccurately calibrated blood-alcohol tests.
More than two dozen people sued the district over convictions based on those flawed tests, and the district Attorney General's office said Tuesday that all the outstanding lawsuits had been settled. The district paid a total of $136,000 to 17 plaintiffs, with individuals receiving between $2,000 and $42,000, said Jeffrey Rhodes, a lawyer for the plaintiffs.
The new law, which was approved by the D.C. Council and signed by Mayor Vincent Gray earlier this summer. It doubles mandatory minimum jail terms for people with blood-alcohol concentrations of .20 percent or higher and establishes a blood-alcohol limit of .04 percent for commercial drivers, including taxi drivers.
The law also establishes new oversight for the district's breath-testing program. But there's still no timetable to the resumption of breath tests, which D.C. police stopped using in February 2011 in the wake of revelations that their breath-testing devices had produced inaccurate results. Police have been using urine and blood tests instead.
A year earlier, District of Columbia officials had notified defense lawyers about nearly 400 drunken-driving convictions that relied, at least party, on inaccurately calibrated blood-alcohol tests.
More than two dozen people sued the district over convictions based on those flawed tests, and the district Attorney General's office said Tuesday that all the outstanding lawsuits had been settled. The district paid a total of $136,000 to 17 plaintiffs, with individuals receiving between $2,000 and $42,000, said Jeffrey Rhodes, a lawyer for the plaintiffs.
Thursday, June 14, 2012
Florida Construction Law Attorney - Heitman Law Firm, PL.
Our law firm follows the same rules handling your case that you use on the jobsite to build your projects. Our work is Plumb Square and Level. When we say plumb, we mean that we are straight up with you. We evaluate your case and tell you where you stand legally, allowing you to make sound business decisions. Square means that we don’t cut corners in protecting our Client’s legal rights whether in drafting your contracts or handling your construction disputes.
By quality, we mean degree of excellence. Heitman Law Firm practices construction law. Mr. Heitman is an expert in construction law, board certified by the Florida Bar. He is a member of an elite group of board certified construction attorneys. In addition, Mr. Heitman is a Florida Licensed Professional Engineer, with years of experience building real world construction projects. As such, the Firm is extremely well qualified to render its clients high quality legal representation.
Heitman Law Firm has the background, training, and experience to handle every aspect of a construction project. With years of experience, Mr. Heitman has successfully drafted and negotiated multi-million dollar construction contracts and is committed to resolving construction claims on behalf of his clients. Visit www.palmbeachconstructionlaw.org for more information.
By quality, we mean degree of excellence. Heitman Law Firm practices construction law. Mr. Heitman is an expert in construction law, board certified by the Florida Bar. He is a member of an elite group of board certified construction attorneys. In addition, Mr. Heitman is a Florida Licensed Professional Engineer, with years of experience building real world construction projects. As such, the Firm is extremely well qualified to render its clients high quality legal representation.
Heitman Law Firm has the background, training, and experience to handle every aspect of a construction project. With years of experience, Mr. Heitman has successfully drafted and negotiated multi-million dollar construction contracts and is committed to resolving construction claims on behalf of his clients. Visit www.palmbeachconstructionlaw.org for more information.
Wednesday, June 13, 2012
Miss Universe pageant fights back on rigging claim
The Miss Universe Organization says a former contestant should be made to pay for her "defamatory" claims that this year's Miss USA pageant was a sham.
The New York-based organization made a filing with a dispute resolution company over the former Miss Pennsylvania USA's assertion that another contestant spotted the list of finalists on a planning sheet hours before the event was even held Sunday, its lawyer Scott Balber said Friday.
A statement from the organization said it was seeking compensation for her "ongoing defamatory statements," but Balber wouldn't say how much money the Miss Universe Organization was seeking.
The pageant also released a statement from Miss Florida USA — the contestant Sheena Monnin claims saw the list — in which she disputes Miss Pennsylvania's version of the events that prompted her to step down.
Monnin gave up her crown Monday, claiming in a Facebook post that the pageant had been rigged, with the top five finishers selected before the show was broadcast Sunday night from Las Vegas. Pageant organizers immediately denied Monnin's allegation and claimed she had actually stepped down because she disagreed with the pageant's decision to allow transgender contestants.
The New York-based organization made a filing with a dispute resolution company over the former Miss Pennsylvania USA's assertion that another contestant spotted the list of finalists on a planning sheet hours before the event was even held Sunday, its lawyer Scott Balber said Friday.
A statement from the organization said it was seeking compensation for her "ongoing defamatory statements," but Balber wouldn't say how much money the Miss Universe Organization was seeking.
The pageant also released a statement from Miss Florida USA — the contestant Sheena Monnin claims saw the list — in which she disputes Miss Pennsylvania's version of the events that prompted her to step down.
Monnin gave up her crown Monday, claiming in a Facebook post that the pageant had been rigged, with the top five finishers selected before the show was broadcast Sunday night from Las Vegas. Pageant organizers immediately denied Monnin's allegation and claimed she had actually stepped down because she disagreed with the pageant's decision to allow transgender contestants.
Sunday, May 13, 2012
Man pleads not guilty in Ohio in Navy charity scam
A recently captured fugitive suspected of running a scam that collected up to $100 million in donations for U.S. Navy veterans pleaded not guilty Tuesday to state charges, and a judge wary that he might disappear again ordered him kept locked up.
The man calls himself Bobby Thompson, though authorities don't believe that's his name but have been unable to identify him otherwise.
The man was arrested last week in Portland, Ore., by U.S. marshals after nearly two years as a fugitive.
Authorities believe he defrauded donors of up to $100 million in 41 states since 2001, including $2 million in Ohio. A fraction of the money has been found.
Authorities say Thompson's Tampa, Fla.-based charity, known as the U.S. Navy Veterans Association, made a few sporadic contributions that benefited veterans, but public records show the man behind it contributed hundreds of thousands of dollars to political candidates around the country.
The man calls himself Bobby Thompson, though authorities don't believe that's his name but have been unable to identify him otherwise.
The man was arrested last week in Portland, Ore., by U.S. marshals after nearly two years as a fugitive.
Authorities believe he defrauded donors of up to $100 million in 41 states since 2001, including $2 million in Ohio. A fraction of the money has been found.
Authorities say Thompson's Tampa, Fla.-based charity, known as the U.S. Navy Veterans Association, made a few sporadic contributions that benefited veterans, but public records show the man behind it contributed hundreds of thousands of dollars to political candidates around the country.
Thursday, May 10, 2012
Man pleads not guilty in Ohio in Navy charity scam
A recently captured fugitive suspected of running a scam that collected up to $100 million in donations for U.S. Navy veterans pleaded not guilty Tuesday to state charges, and a judge wary that he might disappear again ordered him kept locked up.
The man calls himself Bobby Thompson, though authorities don't believe that's his name but have been unable to identify him otherwise.
The man was arrested last week in Portland, Ore., by U.S. marshals after nearly two years as a fugitive.
Authorities believe he defrauded donors of up to $100 million in 41 states since 2001, including $2 million in Ohio. A fraction of the money has been found.
Authorities say Thompson's Tampa, Fla.-based charity, known as the U.S. Navy Veterans Association, made a few sporadic contributions that benefited veterans, but public records show the man behind it contributed hundreds of thousands of dollars to political candidates around the country.
The man calls himself Bobby Thompson, though authorities don't believe that's his name but have been unable to identify him otherwise.
The man was arrested last week in Portland, Ore., by U.S. marshals after nearly two years as a fugitive.
Authorities believe he defrauded donors of up to $100 million in 41 states since 2001, including $2 million in Ohio. A fraction of the money has been found.
Authorities say Thompson's Tampa, Fla.-based charity, known as the U.S. Navy Veterans Association, made a few sporadic contributions that benefited veterans, but public records show the man behind it contributed hundreds of thousands of dollars to political candidates around the country.
Sunday, April 8, 2012
Death penalty overturned for man who killed 3
The Arizona Supreme Court on Tuesday threw out the death sentences of a Tucson man who bludgeoned his girlfriend and her two children to death in 1984 after lying in wait for each of them, ruling that the murders weren't especially heinous even though they were "atrocious" and "senseless."
The state's highest court unanimously vacated two death sentences for James Granvil Wallace, 61, and imposed two sentences of life in prison for the children's killings. That's on top of the life sentence he's already serving for killing his girlfriend, Susan Insalaco.
While the justices wrote that the Feb. 1, 1984, murders of Insalaco, her 12-year-old son, Gabriel, and her 16-year-old daughter, Anna, in their Tucson apartment were heinous in layman's terms, they weren't according to the letter of the law.
That's because the justices found that Wallace didn't knowingly inflict more wounds on the family than he thought were necessary to kill them.
Wallace was living with Insalaco and the children when he came home drunk Jan. 31, 1984, and she told him that he needed to move out, according to court records.
The next day, Insalaco went to work and the kids went to school. Wallace attacked each of them when they arrived home separately after hiding behind the front door.
When Anna came home, court records say that Wallace attacked her from behind and slammed a baseball bat into her head at least 10 times, so hard that the bat broke. Even so, Anna lay moaning and still alive, so Wallace told police that he dragged her into the bathroom and rammed the broken bat into her neck, down her chest cavity and out her back.
The state's highest court unanimously vacated two death sentences for James Granvil Wallace, 61, and imposed two sentences of life in prison for the children's killings. That's on top of the life sentence he's already serving for killing his girlfriend, Susan Insalaco.
While the justices wrote that the Feb. 1, 1984, murders of Insalaco, her 12-year-old son, Gabriel, and her 16-year-old daughter, Anna, in their Tucson apartment were heinous in layman's terms, they weren't according to the letter of the law.
That's because the justices found that Wallace didn't knowingly inflict more wounds on the family than he thought were necessary to kill them.
Wallace was living with Insalaco and the children when he came home drunk Jan. 31, 1984, and she told him that he needed to move out, according to court records.
The next day, Insalaco went to work and the kids went to school. Wallace attacked each of them when they arrived home separately after hiding behind the front door.
When Anna came home, court records say that Wallace attacked her from behind and slammed a baseball bat into her head at least 10 times, so hard that the bat broke. Even so, Anna lay moaning and still alive, so Wallace told police that he dragged her into the bathroom and rammed the broken bat into her neck, down her chest cavity and out her back.
Court: Man can't sue gov't over records sharing
The Supreme Court ruled Wednesday that the federal government cannot be sued for emotional distress after two agencies improperly shared a man's medical records detailing his HIV status.
"We hold that the Privacy Act does not unequivocally authorize an award of damages for mental or emotional distress," said Justice Samuel Alito, who wrote the 5-3 opinion throwing out Stanmore Cooper's lawsuit. "Accordingly, the act does not waive the federal government's sovereign immunity from liability for such harms."
The San Francisco man, who is HIV-positive, disclosed that information to Social Security officials to receive medical benefits, but withheld it from the Federal Aviation Administration. During a criminal investigation involving pilots' medical fitness to fly, the Social Security Administration gave the FAA the medical records of some 45,000 Northern California residents who applied for licenses.
The FAA was investigating whether pilots were using one set of doctors to certify their fitness to fly while applying to Social Security for disability payments using other doctors to support claims of illness and injury.
"We hold that the Privacy Act does not unequivocally authorize an award of damages for mental or emotional distress," said Justice Samuel Alito, who wrote the 5-3 opinion throwing out Stanmore Cooper's lawsuit. "Accordingly, the act does not waive the federal government's sovereign immunity from liability for such harms."
The San Francisco man, who is HIV-positive, disclosed that information to Social Security officials to receive medical benefits, but withheld it from the Federal Aviation Administration. During a criminal investigation involving pilots' medical fitness to fly, the Social Security Administration gave the FAA the medical records of some 45,000 Northern California residents who applied for licenses.
The FAA was investigating whether pilots were using one set of doctors to certify their fitness to fly while applying to Social Security for disability payments using other doctors to support claims of illness and injury.
NM mayor-elect seeks court's help to take office
The mayor-elect of a New Mexico border town is turning to the state Supreme Court to help get him into office.
Daniel Salinas' attorney asked the court Wednesday to direct the 3rd Judicial District Court to revise an order that prevents him from contacting the Sunland Park city clerk.
Under state law, Salinas must be sworn in by April 5 or forfeit the seat. But the city clerk must administer the oath.
Salinas faces extortion charges in an alleged plot to force out another mayoral candidate by threatening to release a video of a topless woman dancing for him.
The Las Cruces Sun-News reports that Salinas' attorney alleges the court order violates his constitutional rights and amounts to the court indirectly interfering with an election.
Daniel Salinas' attorney asked the court Wednesday to direct the 3rd Judicial District Court to revise an order that prevents him from contacting the Sunland Park city clerk.
Under state law, Salinas must be sworn in by April 5 or forfeit the seat. But the city clerk must administer the oath.
Salinas faces extortion charges in an alleged plot to force out another mayoral candidate by threatening to release a video of a topless woman dancing for him.
The Las Cruces Sun-News reports that Salinas' attorney alleges the court order violates his constitutional rights and amounts to the court indirectly interfering with an election.
Swiss supreme court rules FIFA ban threat unlawful
Switzerland's supreme court has dismissed FIFA's "fundamentally unlawful'' threat to ban Brazilian midfielder Matuzalem from any football activity if he fails to pay ?11.86 million ($15.8 million) compensation owed to former club Shakhtar Donetsk.
The Swiss Federal Tribunal said Thursday it upheld Matuzalem's appeal because of a "manifest and serious attack on his rights'' by FIFA and the Court of Arbitration for Sport.
The federal court objected to FIFA's disciplinary panel giving Shakhtar authority to request Matuzalem's ban if he missed payments.
Matuzalem "would be delivered to the arbitrary power of his former employer, and his economic freedom would be limited to such an extent that the basis of its economic existence would be put in danger,'' the federal court said in a statement.
FIFA said in a statement to the Associated Press it would not comment on the verdict.
Matuzalem, who now plays for Lazio, and previous club Zaragoza are still liable for all the compensation, plus five percent annual interest. Zaragoza has entered bankruptcy protection with debts of more than ?110 million ($147 million), and is last in the Spanish league.
The Swiss Federal Tribunal said Thursday it upheld Matuzalem's appeal because of a "manifest and serious attack on his rights'' by FIFA and the Court of Arbitration for Sport.
The federal court objected to FIFA's disciplinary panel giving Shakhtar authority to request Matuzalem's ban if he missed payments.
Matuzalem "would be delivered to the arbitrary power of his former employer, and his economic freedom would be limited to such an extent that the basis of its economic existence would be put in danger,'' the federal court said in a statement.
FIFA said in a statement to the Associated Press it would not comment on the verdict.
Matuzalem, who now plays for Lazio, and previous club Zaragoza are still liable for all the compensation, plus five percent annual interest. Zaragoza has entered bankruptcy protection with debts of more than ?110 million ($147 million), and is last in the Spanish league.
Court takes health care case behind closed doors
The survival of President Barack Obama's health care overhaul rests with a Supreme Court seemingly split over ideology and, more particularly, in the hands of two Republican-appointed justices.
Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Anthony Kennedy put tough questions to administration lawyers defending the health care law during three days of arguments that suggested they have strong reservations about the individual insurance requirement at the heart of the overhaul and, indeed, whether the rest of the massive law can survive if that linchpin fails.
But Roberts and Kennedy also asked enough pointed questions of the law's challengers to give the overhaul's supporters some hope. In any event, justices' questions at arguments do not always foretell their positions.
The court's decision, due in June, will affect the way virtually every American receives and pays for health care and surely will reverberate in this year's campaigns for president and Congress. The political effects could be even larger if the court votes 5-4 with all its Republican-appointed justices prevailing over all the Democratic appointees to strike down the entire law, or several important parts of it.
Not since 2000, when the court resolved the Bush v. Gore dispute over Florida election returns that sealed George W. Bush's election as president, has a Supreme Court case drawn so much attention.
The court wrapped up public arguments Wednesday on the overhaul, which aims to extend health insurance to most of the 50 million Americans now without it. The first and biggest issue the justices must decide is whether the centerpiece of the law, the requirement that nearly all Americans carry insurance or pay a penalty, is constitutional.
Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Anthony Kennedy put tough questions to administration lawyers defending the health care law during three days of arguments that suggested they have strong reservations about the individual insurance requirement at the heart of the overhaul and, indeed, whether the rest of the massive law can survive if that linchpin fails.
But Roberts and Kennedy also asked enough pointed questions of the law's challengers to give the overhaul's supporters some hope. In any event, justices' questions at arguments do not always foretell their positions.
The court's decision, due in June, will affect the way virtually every American receives and pays for health care and surely will reverberate in this year's campaigns for president and Congress. The political effects could be even larger if the court votes 5-4 with all its Republican-appointed justices prevailing over all the Democratic appointees to strike down the entire law, or several important parts of it.
Not since 2000, when the court resolved the Bush v. Gore dispute over Florida election returns that sealed George W. Bush's election as president, has a Supreme Court case drawn so much attention.
The court wrapped up public arguments Wednesday on the overhaul, which aims to extend health insurance to most of the 50 million Americans now without it. The first and biggest issue the justices must decide is whether the centerpiece of the law, the requirement that nearly all Americans carry insurance or pay a penalty, is constitutional.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)