If you've been involved in an auto accident caused by speeding, drunk driving (DWI), unsafe lane changes, following too closely, running red lights & stop signs, reckless truck drivers, or any other cause, the Salazar Law Firm ask you to keep the following in mind: Insurance companies are in the business of making money, not paying policies. If the insurance company is giving you the run-around, call an attorney today.
If you've been injured in an accident, your claim may be significantly weakened if you don't take the right steps. Get medical treatment for your pain and injuries as soon as possible. Insurance companies pay close attention to “lapses in treatment” and whether or not you sought treatment immediately after the accident happened.
The Salazar Law Firm is a Houston based firm that has expertise in defending clients facing auto accidents and insurance claims. Their attorneys understand the physical, emotional, and financial burden an car accident or personal injury can be on an individual and their families. Their goal is to lessen the stress for their clients by managing the complex procedures with insurance companies, medical facilities, and opposing insurance defense lawyers. They have the experience you need and give the attention you deserve. Visit http://www.hurtinhouston.com for more information.
Monday, June 18, 2012
Eugene Criminal Defense Lawyer - Coit & Associates, P.C.
Coit & Associates, P.C., with offices in Eugene and Portland, have criminal defense lawyers acknowledged for providing the highest quality representation in the greater Eugene and Portland metropolitan locations. No matter the size or seriousness of your case, a lawyer at Coit & Associates, P.C. will aggressively tackle the case and understand its importance to you and your family. The attorneys at Coit & Associates, P.C. not only have the experience to represent you but will not back down from anyone. Their goal is to provide their clients with efficient, aggressive, and affordable criminal defense that is effective. Their attorneys care for the defendents charged with or suspected of committing crimes and will fight for you.
Call their office at (541) 685-1288 to schedule an appointment or visit us on http://www.criminaldefenseoregon.com for more information.
Call their office at (541) 685-1288 to schedule an appointment or visit us on http://www.criminaldefenseoregon.com for more information.
Wednesday, June 13, 2012
Court: Reinstate Ohio suit alleging Duke kickbacks
A federal appeals court on Monday ordered reinstatement of a lawsuit that accuses Duke Energy Corp. of paying kickbacks to big Cincinnati-area companies to win their support for a 2004 electricity rate increase.
The 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati reversed a federal judge's 2009 decision and reinstated the 2008 antitrust lawsuit filed on behalf of some Ohio businesses and individuals who bills rose.
The district court judge had concluded that federal courts lacked jurisdiction over the case and that the Ohio Public Utilities Commission, which approved the rate increase, had exclusive jurisdiction over state-law claims.
The three-judge appeals panel, however, said in its unanimous ruling that the lower court was incorrect and that "no circumstances exist here that would deprive the district court of jurisdiction over plaintiffs' state-law claims."
The lawsuit claims that, in 2004, the utility known then as Cinergy Corp. paid off large corporate customers who opposed the rate increase request. The lawsuit alleges that the opposition ended after the companies signed rebate deals with Duke.
The 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati reversed a federal judge's 2009 decision and reinstated the 2008 antitrust lawsuit filed on behalf of some Ohio businesses and individuals who bills rose.
The district court judge had concluded that federal courts lacked jurisdiction over the case and that the Ohio Public Utilities Commission, which approved the rate increase, had exclusive jurisdiction over state-law claims.
The three-judge appeals panel, however, said in its unanimous ruling that the lower court was incorrect and that "no circumstances exist here that would deprive the district court of jurisdiction over plaintiffs' state-law claims."
The lawsuit claims that, in 2004, the utility known then as Cinergy Corp. paid off large corporate customers who opposed the rate increase request. The lawsuit alleges that the opposition ended after the companies signed rebate deals with Duke.
Monday, May 14, 2012
Federal appeals court in Ore. takes up no-fly case
A federal appeals court judge leaned forward in his chair, turned his head to the Justice Department attorney defending the government's no-fly list and posed a frank question.
"Let's say you want to fly back to Washington, and you find yourself on the no-fly list," 9th Circuit Court of Appeals Chief Judge Alex Kozinsky said Friday. "You're sitting in an airport, stranded. You think, 'my God, I went to law school, I work for (the Justice Department), in my heart I know I did nothing wrong.' What do you do?"
Fifteen Muslim men who faced circumstances similar to the hypothetical one asked by Kozinsky, are suing the federal government over their placement on the FBI's no-fly list. They had tried to board flights — either domestic or returning to the U.S. — and were told they couldn't fly.
Justice Department attorney Josh Waldman demurred and said circumstances differ among people on the list. The answer didn't satisfy Kozinsky.
"I mean you, yourself. It's going to be future denials, you can't fly to vacations, bar mitzvahs," Kozinsky pressed, drawing laughs in the federal courtroom in Portland. "I think people here are interested."
The judge's questions were at the heart of the men's lawsuit, though the subject before the three-judge appeals court panel was a narrower question — whether a federal court in Oregon has a say in the case, since the policies of the Transportation Security Administration are not subject to district court jurisdiction.
Last year, U.S. District Court Judge Anna Brown rejected the case, saying it couldn't rule on cases involving TSA policies and procedures.
Brown said she made her ruling based on whether the plaintiffs were arguing against the men's placement on the no-fly list by the FBI's Terrorist Screening Center or against TSA policies. The Terrorist Screening Center is subject to district court jurisdiction.
"Let's say you want to fly back to Washington, and you find yourself on the no-fly list," 9th Circuit Court of Appeals Chief Judge Alex Kozinsky said Friday. "You're sitting in an airport, stranded. You think, 'my God, I went to law school, I work for (the Justice Department), in my heart I know I did nothing wrong.' What do you do?"
Fifteen Muslim men who faced circumstances similar to the hypothetical one asked by Kozinsky, are suing the federal government over their placement on the FBI's no-fly list. They had tried to board flights — either domestic or returning to the U.S. — and were told they couldn't fly.
Justice Department attorney Josh Waldman demurred and said circumstances differ among people on the list. The answer didn't satisfy Kozinsky.
"I mean you, yourself. It's going to be future denials, you can't fly to vacations, bar mitzvahs," Kozinsky pressed, drawing laughs in the federal courtroom in Portland. "I think people here are interested."
The judge's questions were at the heart of the men's lawsuit, though the subject before the three-judge appeals court panel was a narrower question — whether a federal court in Oregon has a say in the case, since the policies of the Transportation Security Administration are not subject to district court jurisdiction.
Last year, U.S. District Court Judge Anna Brown rejected the case, saying it couldn't rule on cases involving TSA policies and procedures.
Brown said she made her ruling based on whether the plaintiffs were arguing against the men's placement on the no-fly list by the FBI's Terrorist Screening Center or against TSA policies. The Terrorist Screening Center is subject to district court jurisdiction.
Tuesday, March 13, 2012
Woman takes Honda to small-claims, wins big
A Southern California woman took Honda to small-claims court and won in a big way.
Los Angeles Superior Court Commissioner Douglas Carnahan ruled Wednesday that the automaker misled Heather Peters about the potential fuel economy of her hybrid car and awarded her $9,867 ? much more than the couple hundred dollars cash that a proposed class-action settlement is offering.
"At a bare minimum Honda was aware ... that by the time Peters bought her car there were problems with its living up to its advertised mileage," Carnahan wrote in the judgment.
Honda disagrees with the judgment rendered in the case and plans to appeal the decision, company spokesman Chris Martin said in a statement.
Peters, a former lawyer, said she is renewing her legal license after a 10-year lapse so she can represent other Honda owners who have the same problems she did.
"Wow! Fantastic. I am absolutely thrilled," she said when The Associated Press informed her of the judge's decision. "Sometimes big justice comes in small packages. This is a victory for Honda Civic owners everywhere."
Carnahan included in his 26-page decision a long list of misleading representations by Honda that he said Peters had correctly identified. Among them were that the car would use "amazingly little fuel," ''provides plenty of horsepower while still sipping fuel," and that it would "save plenty of money on fuel with up to 50 mpg during city driving."
"Actual performance of plaintiff's vehicle did not live up to these standards," he said. He noted that when she began receiving much less than the advertised mileage, "she knew she had a problem."
Peters opted out of the class-action lawsuit so she could try to claim a larger damage award for her 2006 Honda Civic's failure to deliver the 50 mpg that was promised.
Los Angeles Superior Court Commissioner Douglas Carnahan ruled Wednesday that the automaker misled Heather Peters about the potential fuel economy of her hybrid car and awarded her $9,867 ? much more than the couple hundred dollars cash that a proposed class-action settlement is offering.
"At a bare minimum Honda was aware ... that by the time Peters bought her car there were problems with its living up to its advertised mileage," Carnahan wrote in the judgment.
Honda disagrees with the judgment rendered in the case and plans to appeal the decision, company spokesman Chris Martin said in a statement.
Peters, a former lawyer, said she is renewing her legal license after a 10-year lapse so she can represent other Honda owners who have the same problems she did.
"Wow! Fantastic. I am absolutely thrilled," she said when The Associated Press informed her of the judge's decision. "Sometimes big justice comes in small packages. This is a victory for Honda Civic owners everywhere."
Carnahan included in his 26-page decision a long list of misleading representations by Honda that he said Peters had correctly identified. Among them were that the car would use "amazingly little fuel," ''provides plenty of horsepower while still sipping fuel," and that it would "save plenty of money on fuel with up to 50 mpg during city driving."
"Actual performance of plaintiff's vehicle did not live up to these standards," he said. He noted that when she began receiving much less than the advertised mileage, "she knew she had a problem."
Peters opted out of the class-action lawsuit so she could try to claim a larger damage award for her 2006 Honda Civic's failure to deliver the 50 mpg that was promised.
Murray Frank LLP Files Class Action
Murray Frank LLP has filed a class action complaint in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York (Case No. 12 Civ.
0672) on behalf of all individuals and institutions who purchased
securities of GLG Life Tech Corporation during the period between
February 1, 2011 and November 13, 2011 (the “Class Period”), seeking to
pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange
Act”).
The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, the Defendants made false and misleading statements about or knew but failed to disclose that: (1) the Company’s original equipment manufacturers were experiencing production issues that impacted the packaging and appearance quality of its products; (2) consumers were responding poorly to the Company’s AN0C and stevia products; and/or (3) the Company would not meet its earnings projections.
On October 6, 2011, GLG Life Tech issued a press release disclosing for the first time a negative outlook concerning its AN0C and stevia products. On the news, the Company’s stock price dropped by 42% from a close of $3.45 per share on October 5, 2011 to a close of $1.99 per share on October 6, 2011.
Subsequently, on November 14, 2011, the Company announced financial results for the period ending September 30, 2011. Revenue for the period was $1.7 million, versus revenue of $20.9 million for the same period in the previous year. EBITDA for the period was negative $8.8 million, versus EBITDA of $6.1 million for the same period in the previous year. Following its announcement of these disappointing results, the Company’s management declined to provide any further formal guidance on revenues, EBITDA, or capital expenditures. On the news, the Company’s stock price continued to drop, from a close of $2.32 per share on November 11, 2011 (the last trading day before the announcement) to a close of $2.01 on November 14, 2011.
If you purchased GLG Life Tech securities during the period between February 1, 2011 and November 13, 2011, you may move the Court, not later than February 13, 2012, to serve as Lead Plaintiff for the Class. A Lead Plaintiff is a representative chosen by the Court who acts on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. You do not need to be a Lead Plaintiff to be included in the class.
www.murrayfrank.com
The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, the Defendants made false and misleading statements about or knew but failed to disclose that: (1) the Company’s original equipment manufacturers were experiencing production issues that impacted the packaging and appearance quality of its products; (2) consumers were responding poorly to the Company’s AN0C and stevia products; and/or (3) the Company would not meet its earnings projections.
On October 6, 2011, GLG Life Tech issued a press release disclosing for the first time a negative outlook concerning its AN0C and stevia products. On the news, the Company’s stock price dropped by 42% from a close of $3.45 per share on October 5, 2011 to a close of $1.99 per share on October 6, 2011.
Subsequently, on November 14, 2011, the Company announced financial results for the period ending September 30, 2011. Revenue for the period was $1.7 million, versus revenue of $20.9 million for the same period in the previous year. EBITDA for the period was negative $8.8 million, versus EBITDA of $6.1 million for the same period in the previous year. Following its announcement of these disappointing results, the Company’s management declined to provide any further formal guidance on revenues, EBITDA, or capital expenditures. On the news, the Company’s stock price continued to drop, from a close of $2.32 per share on November 11, 2011 (the last trading day before the announcement) to a close of $2.01 on November 14, 2011.
If you purchased GLG Life Tech securities during the period between February 1, 2011 and November 13, 2011, you may move the Court, not later than February 13, 2012, to serve as Lead Plaintiff for the Class. A Lead Plaintiff is a representative chosen by the Court who acts on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. You do not need to be a Lead Plaintiff to be included in the class.
www.murrayfrank.com
French court upholds Scientology fraud conviction
A French appeals court on Thursday upheld the Church of Scientology's
2009 fraud conviction on charges it pressured members into paying large
sums for questionable remedies.
The case began with a legal complaint by a young woman who said she took out loans and spent the equivalent of euro21,000 ($28,000) on books, courses and "purification packages" after being recruited in 1998. When she sought reimbursement and to leave the group, its leadership refused to allow either. She was among three eventual plaintiffs.
"It's a severe defeat for the Church of Scientology, which is hit at the very heart of its organization in France," Olivier Morice, a lawyer for the National Union of Associations Defending Family and Individual Victims of Sects, told reporters after the decision.
Karin Pouw, a spokeswoman for the church in Los Angeles, denounced Thursday's decision, calling it a "miscarriage of justice."
She said the group would appeal the decision to the Court of Cassation and plans to bring a complaint to the European Court of Human Rights. Another complaint is pending with a U.N. special rapporteur.
The case began with a legal complaint by a young woman who said she took out loans and spent the equivalent of euro21,000 ($28,000) on books, courses and "purification packages" after being recruited in 1998. When she sought reimbursement and to leave the group, its leadership refused to allow either. She was among three eventual plaintiffs.
"It's a severe defeat for the Church of Scientology, which is hit at the very heart of its organization in France," Olivier Morice, a lawyer for the National Union of Associations Defending Family and Individual Victims of Sects, told reporters after the decision.
Karin Pouw, a spokeswoman for the church in Los Angeles, denounced Thursday's decision, calling it a "miscarriage of justice."
She said the group would appeal the decision to the Court of Cassation and plans to bring a complaint to the European Court of Human Rights. Another complaint is pending with a U.N. special rapporteur.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)