|
|
|
Court to decide if deportation ruling retroactive
Law Firm News |
2012/05/01 10:08
|
The Supreme Court will decide whether to apply retroactively its 2010 decision that immigrants have a right to be told that a guilty plea could lead to their deportation.
The high court on Monday agreed to hear an appeal from Roselva Chaidez, who was in the process of being deported when the court made that March 2010 decision.
Chaidez pleaded guilty to fraud in 2004 after falsely claiming to be a passenger in a car wreck. Authorities started deportation procedures while she was applying for U.S. citizenship in 2007.
Her lawyer never told her that her fraud conviction may lead to her deportation. Chaidez says she should be able to take advantage of the Supreme Court decision that cemented that principle. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
High court weighs overtime pay for drug sales reps
Legal News |
2012/04/17 11:01
|
A seemingly divided Supreme Court on Monday weighed a potentially costly challenge to the pharmaceutical industry's practice of not paying overtime to its sales representatives.
The justices questioned whether the federal law governing overtime pay should apply to the roughly 90,000 people who try to persuade doctors to prescribe certain drugs to their patients.
Many sales jobs are exempt from overtime pay under the Fair Labor Standards Act. But unlike typical salespeople who often work on commission, pharmaceutical sales representatives cannot seal a deal with doctors. Federal law, in fact, forbids any binding agreement by a doctor to prescribe a specific drug.
Two salesmen who once worked for drug maker GlaxoSmithKline filed a class-action lawsuit claiming that they were not paid for the 10 to 20 hours they worked each week on average outside the normal business day. Their jobs required them to meet with doctors in their offices, but also to attend conventions, dinners, even golf outings.
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg was among several justices who wondered about limits on overtime opportunities if the court were to rule for the sales reps. A court filing by the industry said drug companies could be on the hook for billions of dollars in past overtime.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Court: Rights don't have to be read to prisoners
Legal News |
2012/02/21 10:07
|
The Supreme Court said Tuesday investigators don't have to read Miranda rights to inmates during jailhouse interrogations about crimes unrelated to their current incarceration.
The high court, on a 6-3 vote, overturned a federal appeals court decision throwing out prison inmate Randall Lee Fields' conviction, saying Fields was not in custody as defined by Miranda and therefore did not have to have his rights read to him.
Imprisonment alone is not enough to create a custodial situation within the meaning of Miranda, Justice Samuel Alito wrote in the court's majority opinion.
Three justices, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor, dissented and said the court's decision would limit the rights of prisoners.
Today, for people already in prison, the court finds it adequate for the police to say: 'You are free to terminate this interrogation and return to your cell,' Ginsburg said in her dissent. Such a statement is no substitute for one ensuring that an individual is aware of his rights.
Miranda rights come from a 1966 decision that involved police questioning of Ernesto Miranda in a rape and kidnapping case in Phoenix. It required officers to tell suspects they have the right to remain silent and to have a lawyer represent them, even if they can't afford one.
Previous court rulings have required Miranda warnings before police interrogations for people who are in custody, which is defined as when a reasonable person would think he cannot end the questioning and leave. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Kessler Topaz Meltzer Check, LLP Announces a Proposed Class Action Settlement
Law Firm Press |
2012/02/20 09:45
|
To: All persons and entities who purchased or otherwise acquired the common stock of Pilgrim's Pride Corporation from May 5, 2008 to October 28, 2008, inclusive, including all those who purchased the common stock of Pilgrim's Pride Corporation pursuant and/or traceable to any registration statement, prospectus, prospectus supplement or any documents therein incorporated by reference filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission in connection with the Company's May 14, 2008 Secondary Offering, and who were damaged thereby (the Class).
YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Order of the Court, that the above-captioned action has been certified as a class action for purposes of settlement only and that a settlement for One Million Five Hundred Thousand Dollars ($1,500,000) has been proposed.nbsp; A hearing will be held before the Honorable Rodney Gilstrap in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Sam B. Hall, Jr. Federal Building and United States Courthouse, 100 East Houston Street, Marshall, Texas 75670, Courtroom 106, at 9:00 a.m., on May 1, 2012 to determine: (1) whether the proposed Settlement should be approved as fair, reasonable and adequate; (2) whether the Action should be dismissed with prejudice against Defendants; (3) whether the proposed Plan of Allocation should be approved as fair and reasonable; and (4) whether Lead Counsel's application for an award of attorneys' fees and reimbursement of expenses should be approved.
IF YOU ARE A MEMBER OF THE CLASS DESCRIBED ABOVE, YOUR RIGHTS WILL BE AFFECTED AND YOU MAY BE ENTITLED TO SHARE IN THE SETTLEMENT FUND.nbsp; If you have not yet received the full printed Notice of Pendency of Class Action and Proposed Settlement, Motion for Attorneys' Fees and Expenses and Settlement Fairness Hearing (the Notice) and Proof of Claim and Release form (Proof of Claim), you may obtain copies of these documents by contacting:
Pilgrim's Pride Corporation Securities Litigation
c/o Rust Consulting, Inc.
P.O. Box 2619
Faribault, MN 55021-9619
(866) 430-8117
www.PilgrimsPrideSecuritiesSettlement.com |
|
|
|
|
|
Legal Marketing News RSS
