|
|
|
Supreme Court Refuses to Block Texas Abortion Law
Law Firm News |
2013/11/22 10:03
|
A sharply divided Supreme Court on Tuesday allowed Texas to continue enforcing abortion restrictions that opponents say have led more than a third of the state's clinics to stop providing abortions.
The justices voted 5-4 to leave in effect a provision requiring doctors who perform abortions in clinics to have admitting privileges at a nearby hospital.
The court's conservative majority refused the plea of Planned Parenthood and several Texas abortion clinics to overturn a preliminary federal appeals court ruling that allowed the provision to take effect. The four liberal justices dissented.
The case remains on appeal to the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans. That court is expected to hear arguments in January, and the law will remain in effect at least until then.
Justice Stephen Breyer, writing for the liberal justices, said he expects the issue to return to the Supreme Court once the appeals court issues its final ruling.
The Texas Legislature approved the requirement for admitting privileges in July.
In late October, days before the provision was to take effect, a trial judge blocked it, saying it probably is unconstitutional because it puts a "substantial obstacle" in front of a woman wanting an abortion.
But a three-judge appellate panel moved quickly to overrule the judge. The appeals court said the law was in line with Supreme Court rulings that have allowed for abortion restrictions so long as they do not impose an "undue burden" on a woman's ability to obtain an abortion. Writing for the appeals court, Judge Priscilla Owen noted that the Texas law would not end the procedure, only force women to drive a greater distance to obtain one.
Justice Antonin Scalia, writing in support of the high court order Tuesday, said the clinics could not overcome a heavy legal burden against overruling the appeals court. The justices may not do so "unless that court clearly and demonstrably erred," Scalia said in an opinion that was joined by Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas.
Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Anthony Kennedy did not write separately or join any opinion Tuesday, but because it takes five votes to overturn the appellate ruling, it is clear that they voted with their conservative colleagues. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Man pleads guilty in hole-in-one prize case
Legal Line News |
2013/11/18 16:33
|
Man pleads guilty in hole-in-one prize case
A businessman charged with failing to pay golfers for hole-in-one prizes insured by his company has pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor charge and agreed to pay a Montana man $10,000 of a promised $18,000 prize.
Kevin W. Kolenda of Norwalk, Conn., didn't attend Thursday's hearing before Justice of the Peace Karen Orzech in Missoula. His attorney, Brian Tipp, entered a guilty plea on Kolenda's behalf to acting as an insurer without a license. In exchange, prosecutors dismissed a felony insurance fraud charge. Kolenda was given a six-month suspended jail sentence.
Kolenda is the former president and CEO of hole-in-won.com, a company that collects premiums and agrees to pay cash prizes to winners of hole-in-one contests. He has been charged with failing to pay prizes in several states. Last month, he pleaded guilty in Seattle to two felony counts of selling insurance without a license and one count of first-degree theft. He has not been sentenced.
Complaints of Kolenda's company failing to pay prizes have been filed in several other states, and he has been sanctioned by regulators in Alabama, Connecticut, Massachusetts, Nevada, North Carolina and Washington. Connecticut officials fined Kolenda $5.9 million in 2009 for illegally offering insurance without a license.
Kolenda was charged in Montana after Troy Peissig was denied an $18,000 prize after hitting a hole-in-one during a 2010 golf tournament in Missoula. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Spain court rejects handing pedophile to Morocco
Legal News Feed |
2013/11/18 16:32
|
Spain's National Court has ruled against extraditing back to Morocco a convicted Spanish pedophile whose release triggered protests in the North African country.
A court statement Monday said Daniel Galvan Vina would not be handed back because under a bilateral agreement Spain and Morocco do not extradite their citizens to each other. The court said, however, it would begin a process to ensure that Galvan serves out his sentence in a Spanish jail, something the convict had originally asked for.
Galvan was convicted of raping 11 children in Morocco and sentenced to 30 years prison in 2011. He was mistakenly pardoned by Morocco's King Mohammed VI in July but was arrested in Spain days later after the king rescinded his pardon following the protests. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
High court reverses pot conviction over evidence
Legal News Feed |
2013/11/11 14:01
|
The Montana Supreme Court on Wednesday reversed the conviction of a Beaverhead County man for criminal distribution of dangerous drugs, saying he was convicted based on insufficient evidence.
The court ruled in a 4-1 decision that state prosecutors presented the testimony of just one witness, who said Anthony James Burwell provided her with marijuana in exchange for baby-sitting his two daughters while he went to work in summer 2011.
Jennifer Jones told authorities that the night before she was supposed to baby-sit, she and Burwell smoked a bowl of a substance she said was marijuana, describing it as "green with orange hairs," according to the opinion written by Chief Justice Mike McGrath.
Jones identified Burwell in a list of "people to narc on" that she wrote while in police custody, McGrath wrote. She gave a vague description of the man and said he lived next door to her friend, according to the opinion.
Officers concluded Jones was referring to Burwell, found that he had a medical marijuana card and charged him in October 2011. He was convicted in district court and sentenced to 10 years, with five years suspended.
"Officers never searched Burwell's residence, never attempted a controlled buy and never discovered any marijuana in his possession," McGrath wrote.
No expert analyzed Jones' description of the substance, no other witnesses backed her testimony and she did not describe the effects of the substance, McGrath wrote.
The evidence was insufficient to conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that the substance was a dangerous drug, the chief justice wrote.
Justice Jim Rice dissented, saying that the majority opinion ignores significant circumstantial evidence and that it was up to the jury that convicted Burwell to determine the facts.
Burwell acknowledged that he did not pay Jones cash for baby-sitting and that Burwell and his son were medical marijuana cardholders permitted to grow the drug at home, Rice wrote.
"The testimony here, of a lay witness identifying marijuana from prior experience with the drug, along with the confirming circumstantial evidence, is sufficient to establish the identity of the substance," Rice wrote. |
|
|
|
|
|
Legal Marketing News RSS
