The Nevada Supreme Court on Tuesday denied a request to block a judge's hearings into the health risks of a mentally impaired woman's pregnancy.
The court's unanimous ruling allowed Washoe County District Judge Egan Walker to resume the evidentiary hearings Tuesday morning in a case that has drawn the attention of national anti-abortion groups.
The 32-year-old woman's parental guardians asked the court Friday to halt the hearings, saying Walker lacks the authority to terminate the pregnancy of their daughter, who has the mental capacity of a 6-year-old.
They claim they have exclusive authority over her health care decisions, and they want their daughter to carry the baby to term in line with their Catholic religious beliefs.
But the high court sided with Walker, saying he has the authority to monitor the woman's welfare and hold the hearings.
Justices noted the guardians failed to file an annual report regarding their daughter's condition and their performance of duties as required by state law. They also said the court obtained information about concerns over the woman's medical condition.
"The purpose of the evidentiary hearings at this time is merely to obtain information in order to make well-reasoned and informed decisions regarding the ward's medical care," justices wrote. "Under these circumstances, we conclude that the district court has not exceeded its jurisdiction or arbitrarily or capriciously exercised its discretion."
Attorney Jason Guinasso, who represents the guardians, was tied up in Tuesday's hearing and unavailable for immediate comment, according to his secretary.
Guinasso has said he's aware of only one similar case in the country. It involved a Massachusetts judge who ordered a mentally ill 31-year-old woman to have an abortion and to be sterilized against her wishes. The state Appeals Court overturned the decision Jan. 17.
The Nevada couple said that while the pregnancy poses health risks to their daughter and the baby, medical experts back them in their decision to continue the pregnancy. The woman suffers from epilepsy and is on medication.
Thursday, November 8, 2012
Wednesday, October 17, 2012
Pittsburgh Domestic Violence Lawyers
In Pennsylvania, a charge of domestic violence or domestic abuse may include any of a variety of offenses, including simple assault, aggravated assault, terroristic threats, or stalking. Essentially, any crime of violence may form the basis of a domestic violence charge. Domestic violence may be an allegation of physical violence causing injuries, or just the threat of injury. Domestic violence can occur between spouses, former partners or spouses, domestic partners, same-sex significant others, parents and children, children, or individuals involved in a dating relationship.
In recent years, law enforcement and prosecutors have taken a more active role in aggressively prosecuting allegations of domestic violence. Even if the victim tells the court and prosecutor they do not wish to press charges, the case may not be dismissed due to the nature of the charges.
Sadly, my experience as a Pittsburgh Police officer has also shown me that it is not above some people to falsely accuse a family member of “domestic violence” in order to try to gain the upper hand in situations such as divorce proceedings or child custody proceedings. Do not let this happen to you because, once you are charged with domestic violence, it is very difficult to regain your good name. It is important that you obtain the services of an experienced Pittsburgh criminal defense attorney who will work on your behalf as soon as you are aware that you may be charged with domestic violence
If you have been charged with domestic violence or domestic abuse, you may be looking at jail time, the loss of your job, the restriction of your right to own a gun and, if children are involved, the restriction or loss of your rights as a parent. You have so much at stake and so much to lose. The potential consequences to you are devastating and can affect you for the rest of your life. I provide you with the knowledge and experience that is critical to your defense against domestic violence charges.
Contact Our Pennsylvania Criminal Defense Law Firm
Please call me today at 412-429-4360, email me at info@gbmlawpittsburgh.com or contact me through this website http://www.gbmlawpittsburgh.com/criminal-defense
In recent years, law enforcement and prosecutors have taken a more active role in aggressively prosecuting allegations of domestic violence. Even if the victim tells the court and prosecutor they do not wish to press charges, the case may not be dismissed due to the nature of the charges.
Sadly, my experience as a Pittsburgh Police officer has also shown me that it is not above some people to falsely accuse a family member of “domestic violence” in order to try to gain the upper hand in situations such as divorce proceedings or child custody proceedings. Do not let this happen to you because, once you are charged with domestic violence, it is very difficult to regain your good name. It is important that you obtain the services of an experienced Pittsburgh criminal defense attorney who will work on your behalf as soon as you are aware that you may be charged with domestic violence
If you have been charged with domestic violence or domestic abuse, you may be looking at jail time, the loss of your job, the restriction of your right to own a gun and, if children are involved, the restriction or loss of your rights as a parent. You have so much at stake and so much to lose. The potential consequences to you are devastating and can affect you for the rest of your life. I provide you with the knowledge and experience that is critical to your defense against domestic violence charges.
Contact Our Pennsylvania Criminal Defense Law Firm
Please call me today at 412-429-4360, email me at info@gbmlawpittsburgh.com or contact me through this website http://www.gbmlawpittsburgh.com/criminal-defense
Monday, June 18, 2012
Houston Auto Accident & Insurance Claims Law Firm - The Salazar Law Firm, PLLC
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.
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)