|
|
|
Court: Payday lending law violated constitution
Legal Line News |
2008/11/05 14:07
|
| A 1999 state law allowing so-called payday lenders to charge high fees for short-term loans violates the state constitution, the Arkansas Supreme Court ruled Thursday.pIn a 6-0 decision, the court said the fees permitted under the 1999 Check Cashers Act were really triple-digit interest rates. The state constitution limits interest rates on loans to 17 percent./ppBecause that fee is in reality an amount owed to the lender in return for the use of borrowed money, we must conclude that the fees authorized clearly constitute interest, Justice Paul Danielson wrote./ppThrough a payday loan in Arkansas, a customer writing a check for $400, for example, typically would receive $350. The lender would keep the check for about two weeks before cashing it./ppThe customer could buy back the check for $350 during that two-week period, but otherwise would pay the full $400 when the company cashed his check. The $50 charge on a $350 loan for 14 days equates to 371 percent, well above Arkansas' usury limit./ppAttorney Todd Turner, who represented the plaintiffs who challenged the Check Cashers Act, said the ruling means it will be impossible for payday lenders to operate in the state./ppIt's great for all the Arkansas residents who have been paying 600 percent for these loans, Turner said./ppTom Hardin, attorney for the Arkansas Financial Services Association that sought to preserve the law, did not immediately return a call seeking comment./ppEven before Thursday's ruling, the number of payday lenders in the state has dwindled in response to threats of lawsuits from Attorney General Dustin McDaniel. An advocacy group said in a report last month that the number of payday lenders operating in the state has dropped from 237 in March to just 33./ppIn its 6-0 decision, the court overturned a Pulaski County judge who last year ruled that the 1999 act was constitutional. /p |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Alinghi, rivals call on BMW Oracle to drop lawsuit
Legal Line News |
2008/10/30 19:41
|
| All 11 teams challenging for the next America's Cup have called on American syndicate BMW Oracle Racing to drop its legal fight with cup holder Alinghi.pThe request came at a meeting of Cup contenders Thursday called by Alinghi at its home yacht club in Geneva./ppPreparations for the 33rd America's Cup have been stalled for more than a year by legal problems./ppThe BMW Oracle team based in San Francisco believes Alinghi has acted unfairly in the way it has drawn up rules for the next cup races./ppThe team is waiting on an appeal ruling from a New York court./ppSwiss-owned Alinghi has invited teams from across the world to help it plan for an America's Cup in 2010. On Thursday they united to ask BMW Oracle to join them. /p |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hot-button social issues highlight state ballots
Legal Line News |
2008/10/28 19:42
|
| pSocial issues so volatile that the presidential campaigns sidestepped them will be on the ballots in several states next week, including measures that would criminalize most abortions, outlaw affirmative action and ban same-sex marriage in California, one of only three states that allows it./ppIn all, there are 153 proposals on ballots in 36 states./ppIn Washington, voters will decide whether to join Oregon as the only states offering terminally ill people the option of physician-assisted suicide. Massachusetts has three distinctive measures on its ballot — to ban dog racing, ease marijuana laws and scrap the state income tax, a step that could unleash budgetary tumult./ppThe main presidential rivals, Democrat Barack Obama and Republican John McCain, have rarely made proactive comments during the campaign about same-sex marriage or affirmative action — issues on which the public is deeply divided. Abortion also has seemed like an uncomfortable topic for them at times, although Obama makes clear he supports abortion rights and McCain says he would like to ban most abortions./ppBut in a half-dozen states, these three issues are front and center./p |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Attorney Need Not Deliver Subpoenaed Transcript
Legal Line News |
2008/08/28 07:17
|
An attorney does not have to turn over the transcript of an interview with a son of his client, despite a grand jury subpoena, the Missouri Supreme Court ruled unanimously.
In a 6-0 decision, the state's high court ruled that the jury failed to show substantial need to have the transcript turned over and that the transcript is a product of attorney-client privilege.
The attorney, John Rogers, was representing a client who was a person of interest in the disappearance of the client's son. The client claimed his vehicle was stolen from a parking lot while his son, a 10-year-old with disabilities, was inside. The vehicle was later found, but the child's whereabouts remain a mystery. Rogers took the statement from his client's older son, while representing the client.
After receiving the subpoena, Rogers filed a motion to quash because he claimed it was an attorney work product and that it would be unreasonable and oppressive to release it.
The circuit court found that the transcript was not an attorney work product because it did not contain the attorney's opinions, theories or conclusions.
blockquoteBecause Missouri defines work product in criminal procedure only in regard to the attorney's opinions, theories or conclusions, the Missouri Supreme Court found that because grand jury proceedings do not take place before an indictment is filed, the discovery rules for criminal proceedings do not apply./blockquoteblockquoteHistorically, a lawyer is an officer of the court and is bound to work for the advancement of justice while faithfully protecting the rightful interests of his clients, Judge Patricia Breckenridge wrote. In performing his various duties, however, it is essential that a lawyer work with a certain degree of privacy, free from unnecessary intrusion by opposing parties and their counsel. Proper preparation of a client's case demands that he assemble information, sift what he considers to be the relevant from the irrelevant facts, prepare his legal theories and plan his strategy without undue and needless interference. ... Were such materials open to opposing counsel on mere demand, much of what is now put down in writing would remain unwritten. An attorney's thoughts, heretofore inviolate, would not be his own. Inefficiency, unfairness and sharp practices would inevitably develop in the giving of legal advice and in the preparation of cases for trial. The effect on the legal profession would be demoralizing. And the interests of the clients and the cause of justice would be poorly served. /blockquote
nbsp;nbsp; |
|
|
|
|
|
Legal Marketing News RSS
