|
|
|
Ohio top court mulls Planned Parenthood files
U.S. Court News |
2008/10/08 07:19
|
| Ohio Supreme Court justices appeared skeptical Tuesday that an abortion clinic's medical records on other patients are relevant to a lawsuit brought by parents of a 14-year-old girl who had an abortion without their consent.pLawyers for the girl's family argued that the information they seek is necessary to prove that Planned Parenthood of Cincinnati had a pattern of violating Ohio's parental consent law and failing to report abuse. The unusual case pits a single plaintiff against the privacy interests of a decade's worth of patients./ppPlanned Parenthood attorney Daniel Buckley says the clinic has a legal obligation to protect the privacy of its clients' records./ppCharles Miller, an attorney for the parents, told the justices the plaintiffs seek only three facts about other minors treated at the clinic: the girl's age, whether she had a sexually transmitted disease, and whether she entered the clinic pregnant. He said about 200 cases a year would be involved./ppChief Justice Thomas Moyer questioned how any of those three details would advance the family's case for damages./ppWhere's the linkage? he asked./ppThe court did not indicate when it would rule./ppThe case involves a girl who was 14 at the time of her abortion in 2004, when the state's parental consent law had not been completely settled by the courts. She had been impregnated by her 21-year-old youth soccer coach, John Haller./ppThe family's lawsuit accuses the Planned Parenthood clinic of failing to get parental consent, report suspected abuse or to inform the girl of risks and alternatives. It seeks unspecified damages./ppCourt records say the girl gave Haller's cell phone number as her father's, and clinic officials thought they had reached the father when they called inquiring about parental consent. Haller was later convicted on seven counts of sexual battery./ppAn appeals court ruled last year that records on other patients weren't necessary for the family's lawsuit./p |
|
|
|
|
|
|
High court could block 'light' cigarettes lawsuit
U.S. Court News |
2008/10/07 07:12
|
| div class=articleThe Supreme Court picked up Monday where it left off last term, signaling support for efforts to block lawsuits against tobacco companies over deceptive marketing of light cigarettes. pThe first day of the court's new term, which is set in law as the first Monday in October, included denials of hundreds of appeals. Chief Justice John Roberts opened the new session in a crowded courtroom that included retired Justice Sandra Day O'Connor./ppLast term, the justices handed down several opinions that limited state regulation of business in favor of federal power. Several justices posed skeptical questions in this term's first case, whether federal law prevents smokers from using consumer protection laws to go after tobacco companies for their marketing of light and low tar cigarettes./ppThe companies are facing dozens of such lawsuits across the country./ppThe federal cigarette labeling law bars states from regulating any aspect of cigarette advertising that involves smoking and health./ppHow do you tell it's deceptive or not if you don't look at what the relationship is between smoking and health?, Chief Justice John Roberts said during oral arguments on the case./ppThree Maine residents sued Altria Group Inc. and its Philip Morris USA Inc. subsidiary under the state's law against unfair marketing practices. The class-action claim represents all smokers of Marlboro Lights or Cambridge Lights cigarettes, both made by Philip Morris./ppThe lawsuit argues that the company knew for decades that smokers of light cigarettes compensate for the lower levels of tar and nicotine by taking longer puffs and compensating in other ways./ppA federal district court threw out the lawsuit, but the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said it could go forward./ppThe role of the Federal Trade Commission could be important in the outcome. The FTC is only now proposing to change rules that for years condoned the use of light and low tar in advertising the cigarettes, despite evidence that smokers were getting a product as dangerous as regular cigarettes./p/div |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Bailout bill gains momentum on House floor
Law Firm News |
2008/10/03 07:15
|
After a week of tumult, an unprecedented government bailout of the financial industry gained ground in the House on Friday and leaders in both political parties expressed optimism the $700 billion measure would clear Congress by day's end for President Bush's signature.
With the economy showing fresh signs of weakness, the measure advanced past a key hurdle on a 223-205 vote. pAn Associated Press tally showed 16 lawmakers who sent an earlier bailout bill to unexpected defeat on Monday had changed their minds and would vote in favor of the revised legislation, more than the dozen needed. Officials said changes made to the measure had sparked a far smaller number of defections among previous supporters. pI'm optimistic about today. We're not going to take anything for granted but it's time to act, said House Republican Leader John Boehner of Ohio. pI think it will pass, agreed Rep. Jim Clyburn, the chief Democratic vote-counter, as debate unfolded in the House chamber. pThe Senate passed the measure earlier in the week on a bipartisan vote of 74-25. pNo matter what we do or what we pass, there are still tough times out there. People are mad -- I'm mad, said Republican Rep. J. Gresham Barrett of South Carolina, who opposed the measure the first time it came to a vote. Now, he said, We have to act. We have to act now. pRep. John Lewis, D-Ga., another convert, said, I have decided that the cost of doing nothing is greater than the cost of doing something./p |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ex-Attorney Loses Bid to Access Legislator's Records
Court News |
2008/10/01 07:18
|
The Ohio Supreme Court denied a retired lawyer's request for access toa state legislator's e-mails, text messages and correspondence.
nbsp; nbsp; JeffreyGlasgow sought a writ of mandamus for access to the correspondence ofRep. Shannon Jones, because he was concerned about the effects of OhioHouse Bill 151 on his public-employee pension.
nbsp; nbsp; The bill would require public investors to divest holdings in companies that do certain business in Iran or Sudan.
nbsp; nbsp; The state Supreme Court ruled that Glasgow's request was overly broad.
nbsp; nbsp; Glasgow'smerit brief focused on e-mails and text messages. Therefore, thejustices disqualified correspondence. Text messages were alsodisqualified because they do not document work-related matters.
nbsp; nbsp; SinceJones has already delivered the 26 e-mail messages pertaining to HouseBill 151, the justices ruled that Glasgow's request is moot. |
|
|
|
|
|
Legal Marketing News RSS
