Court allows hearings in Nevada abortion case

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.

Jersey City Workers' Compensation Lawyer

Certain jobs are inherently dangerous, and the types of injuries that may arise can be catastrophic.  If a worker sustains serious injury from a fall, electrocution, chemical explosion, or other serious accident, the costs of the tragedy can build up quickly.  In addition to loss of income, the injured worker may require long term hospitalization, physical therapy, and follow-up treatment. Getting injured on the job can place a huge burden on the individual. Emotional and financial stresses can take a toll and may not help the recovery process.

If you are injured while performing your job, you should contact a workers' compensation lawyer as you may be eligible to receive compensation for medical treatment, lost wages, and any permanent damage or disfigurement that you suffer.  A workers' compensation lawyer can represent your interests and seek the maximum compensation that you are entitled to.

The Reinartz Law Firm represents workers who are injured on the job in a variety of matters involving:

    Fractures
    Herniations
    Back injuries
    Knee injuries, ankle injuries, shoulder injuries, and other joint injuries
    Hip injuries
    Eye/hearing loss
    Disfigurement and scarring of face, neck, or hands
    Carpal tunnel-repetitive trauma injuries
    Asthma and other work related pulmonary conditions
    Loss of use of limbs
    Other work-related injuries

The law limits the time in which you may bring a workers' compensation claim. If you've been injured on the job, your claim may be significantly weakened if you don't take the right steps.  Call today to discuss your case with an experienced Jersey City workers' compensation lawyer. Our website has more information on workers' compensation and other services we offer http://www.reinartzlaw.com/practice-areas/workers-compensation

Fed. appeals court denies ex-Ill. governor appeal

A federal appellate court in Chicago has denied an appeal filed by imprisoned former Illinois Gov. George Ryan.

The 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals released a 16-page ruling on Monday denying the 78-year-old Republican's appeal.

A ruling in his favor could have led to Ryan's release from an Indiana prison. It was widely seen as his last chance to get out of prison early.

Ryan is nearing the end of a 6 1/2-year sentence. He's due to be released in mid-2013.

The U.S. Supreme Court in April ordered the appeals court to revisit Ryan's arguments to overturn his conviction.

Last year, the lower court rejected arguments that the 2006 convictions should be tossed because prosecutors never proved Ryan took a bribe.

New York SEC Attorneys - Herskovits Law

Employment claims brought by securities industry participants involve issues unique to the securities industry.  Having represented broker-dealers and registered representatives, we have substantial experience with both sides of these disputes and have prosecuted or defended claims for Form U5 expungement, unpaid deferred compensation (including Restricted Stock Units), enforcement of employee forgivable loans (EFL), broker-dealer raiding, unpaid bonuses or commissions, and wrongful termination. 

Over the past five years, Robert Herskovits has successfully prosecuted a significant number of EFL cases brought on behalf of Jefferies & Company, Inc. and smaller broker-dealers.  As a small law firm, we remain free from many of the conflicts associated with larger firms, and have defended a multitude of EFL cases brought by various broker-dealers.  When defending an EFL case, we structure a defense designed to achieve a resolution with a significant discount to the Note's unpaid balance.

Herskovits Law has expertise in both prosecuting and defending claims for securities industry participants involved in issues in the securities industry. Having represented numerous employees, their reputation for effective advocacy by advancing their clients' interests from the outset of each case has been acknowledged in the New York Securities Industry. See www.herskovitslaw.com.

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 www.criminaldefenseoregon.com for more information.

Feds and Florida headed to court over voter purge

The administration of Florida Gov. Rick Scott is headed to a legal showdown with two different federal agencies over a contentious voter purge.
Florida filed a lawsuit in a federal court in Washington D.C., demanding that the state be given the right to check the names of its registered voters against an immigration database maintained by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security.
The lawsuit came the same day that the U.S. Department of Justice announced its plan to ask a federal court to block the state from pushing ahead with removing potential non-U.S. citizens from the voter rolls. Authorities contend that the state's effort violates federal voting laws.
"Please immediately cease this unlawful conduct," wrote Assistant Attorney General Thomas Perez to Florida Secretary of State Ken Detzner.
But Scott himself went on national television to defend the purge and the need to sue the federal government.

Okla. court halts 'personhood' rights for embryos

The Oklahoma Supreme Court on Monday halted an effort to grant "personhood" rights to human embryos, saying the measure is unconstitutional.

The state's highest court ruled unanimously that a proposed amendment to the Oklahoma Constitution that would define a fertilized human egg as a person violates a 1992 U.S. Supreme Court decision involving a Pennsylvania case and "is clearly unconstitutional." Supporters of the personhood amendment are trying to gather enough signatures to put it before Oklahoma voters on the November ballot.

Opponents contend the measure would ban abortions without exception and interfere with a woman's right to use certain forms of contraception and medical procedures, such as in vitro fertilization.

The American Civil Liberties Union and the New York-based Center for Reproductive Rights filed a protest with the state Supreme Court on behalf of several Oklahoma doctors and residents. They asked the court to stop the group Personhood Oklahoma from gathering signatures.

The nine-member court determined the initiative petition "is void on its face" and struck it down.

"The only course available to this court is to follow what the United States Supreme Court, the final arbiter of the United States Constitution, has decreed," the court said.

Mass. court: Intent to sell pot still a crime

The state’s highest court has ruled that a person can still be criminally charged with attempting to distribute marijuana even when the amount of the drug discovered is less than an ounce.

But the court left open the question of whether those criminal charges can also be leveled against people sharing a marijuana cigarette.

The court’s decision was intended to help clarify a 2008 voter-approved ballot question that decriminalized possession of small amounts of pot. Someone caught with less than an ounce of marijuana now faces a $100 fine instead of jail time.

US bishops fight birth control deal

The top U.S. Catholic bishop vowed legislative and court challenges Tuesday to a compromise by President Barack Obama to his healthcare mandate that now exempts religiously affiliated institutions from paying directly for birth control for their workers, instead making insurance companies responsible.

Cardinal-designate Timothy Dolan, who heads the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, said in an interview with The Associated Press that he trusted Obama wasn't anti-religious and intended to make good on his pledge to work with religious groups to fine-tune the mandate.

"I want to take him at his word," Dolan said in Rome, where he will be made a cardinal Saturday. But he stressed: "I do have to say it's getting harder and harder," to believe Obama's claim to prioritize religious freedom issues given the latest controversy.

Obama sought to quell fierce election-year outrage on Friday by abandoning his stand that religiously affiliated institutions such as Catholic hospitals and universities must pay for birth control. Instead, he said insurance would step in to provide the coverage.

The administration's initial position had outraged evangelicals and Catholic bishops and emboldened many Republicans who charged that it amounted to an assault on religion by forcing religious institutions to pay for contraception, sterilization and the morning-after pill against their consciences.

Brandy A. Hood, Esq. Joins Tully Rinckey PLLC

Washington, D.C. & Albany, NY – Tully Rinckey PLLC is pleased to announce the addition of attorney Brandy Hood as an associate in its Washington, D.C. law office. Ms. Hood joins the firm’s federal sector labor and employment law practice.
Ms. Hood will provide representation to federal employees in a wide range of employment and labor issues including discrimination, sexual harassment, equal pay, adverse action, and Title VII claims. She has previous experience in immigration, bankruptcy, civil litigation, and business transactions.
Prior to joining Tully Rinckey PLLC, Ms. Hood was a Judicial Extern for Honorable Lance Africk at the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana and a Judicial Intern for the Honorable Frederick H. Wicker at the Louisiana Fifth Circuit of Appeal. 
Ms. Hood earned her Juris Doctorate at Tulane University Law School, graduating cum laude and earning the David L. Herman Award for her high professional standards in law. In addition to her law degree, Ms. Hood holds a B.A. degree from The George Washington University.
She is admitted to practice in New York and her District of Columbia admission is pending.
For more information about Brandy Hood’s addition to Tully Rinckey PLLC or the firm’s federal labor and employment law practice, please contact Jessica Brociek at 202-787-1900 or via email at jbrociek@tullylegal.com.

Cleveland law firm leases larger Chicago office

Cleveland-based law firm Ulmer & Berne has signed a lease to occupy 18,000 square feet in the Citigroup Center for a larger Chicago office.
The new office at 500 W. Madison St. signals that the firm plans to expand from its current roster of eight attorneys. The new space can accommodate 30 lawyers plus staff. In September, the firm grew from two lawyers to eight with the addition of litigators from Reed Smith and Levenfeld Pearlstein.
Ulmer & Berne is the third Cleveland firm to enter or move to new offices in the Chicago market in recent months. Baker & Hostetler opened a new office at 191 N. Wacker Drive in November with four attorneys. In September McDonald Hopkins leased 24,000 square feet at 300 N. LaSalle St.

Curtis law firm moves D.C. office

The D.C. office of law firm Curtis, Mallet-Prevost, Colt & Mosle LLP has relocated its headquarters to larger space downtown.
The firm said that its new location, on the top floor of 1717 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, more than doubles the size of its offices and will allow for continued expansion of its practice.
"This relocation marks an important step in Curtis’ ongoing expansion in Washington,” said D.C. Managing Partner Daniel Lenihan.
The firm said that it has added four senior lawyers to its D.C. office since December 2008.
According to its Web site, Curtis has three U.S. offices with 16 professionals working in Washington, five working in Houston and more than 100 based in New York. In addition, Curtis has 10 international offices.

Carey, Danis team with Lowe on new law firm

St. Louis attorneys John Carey, Joseph Danis and Jeffrey Lowe said Monday they formed Carey, Danis & Lowe law firm.
Carey, 48, and Danis, 40, were already practicing together as Carey & Danis LLC, which focused on pharmaceutical liability, mass torts and class actions, recovering more than $800 million for its clients.
The Lowe Law Firm focused its practice on personal injury cases and has won some of the largest jury verdicts in Missouri, obtaining settlements and judgments of more than $150 million. Lowe, 53, obtained a $105 million verdict against Bridgestone/Firestone in 2000 on behalf of Randy Dorman for injuries he suffered when a tire rim assembly exploded.
The new firm will handle pharmaceutical liability, product liability, personal injury, medical malpractice, class actions, and economic loss cases throughout the United States.

Family of Navy Electrician's Mate Awarded $6.5M

A Philadelphia jury has found Rockwell Automation Inc., sued as successor to Allen-Bradley Company, liable for the asbestos-related death of Navy electrician's mate, David Lanpher. The liability finding is the first-ever asbestos-exposure verdict against Rockwell.
The case was tried as a reverse bifurcated proceeding - a multi-phase trial that requires the jury to determine first if the plaintiff's mesothelioma was caused by asbestos exposure, and if so, what amount of damages is reasonable to compensate for pain, suffering, loss of consortium, and other circumstances related to the plaintiff's illness. In Phase I, defendants remain unknown to the jury, and plaintiff's counsel is not permitted to discuss or make recommendations about the scope or amount of the award.
Phase II, the liability hearing , occurs if the jury finds that the plaintiff's illness was indeed caused by asbestos exposure. In Phase II, the jury hears evidence about the asbestos-containing products identified by the plaintiff, and determines which - if any - manufacturers are responsible for the plaintiff's illness. This in turn, directs how many manufacturers are apportioned a share of the damages awarded in Phase I.
In Lanpher vs. Alfa Laval, Inc., the jury found Rockwell - the lone defendant at verdict - to be one of eight manufacturers responsible for Mr. Lanpher's asbestos exposure and subsequent mesothelioma. As such, Rockwell is responsible for one-eighth, or 12.5 percent, of the $6.5 million awarded to the Lanpher family.
Phase I concluded on February 19, 2010. The final verdict was delivered on March 5, 2010, at the end of Phase II.
Mr. Lanpher, an active and gainfully employed 71-year-old husband, father and grandfather, had reportedly been in perfect health prior to his diagnosis of malignant pleural mesothelioma in August 2007. He died on July 13, 2008 - less than one year later, and just one day after completing the video deposition in which he sharply recalled the types, names and brands of the asbestos-containing products that caused his illness and cut short his life.
Via video deposition, Mr. Lanpher recounted enlisting in the U.S. Navy in 1954. During his 20-year career as an electrician's mate, he worked in the engineering spaces of the USS Chemung, USS Randolph,  USS Remey, USS Brough, USS Dashell, USS Benewah, and USS Wright. His assignments required him to handle various engine parts and components, including asbestos-containing insulating boards and motor control units. He recalled cutting and filing parts, including asbestos-containing motor control units manufactured and sold by Allen-Bradley, and the dust that he regularly breathed in tight quarters. He was honorably discharged in 1973, and worked as an electrician in Phoenix, Arizona, until he became too ill to work in 2007.
Mr. Lanpher's wife, Pauline, and daughter and son-in-law, Nancy and Terry Perkins, traveled from Phoenix for the trial. The family was present during both Phase I and Phase II verdicts, and were relieved and satisfied with the trial's outcome.