Hearing: Which court should hear coastal lawsuit?

A legal tug-of-war continues in a state levee board's lawsuit against 97 oil, gas and pipeline companies over the erosion of wetlands.

The Southeast Louisiana Flood Protection Authority-East wants U.S. District Judge Nannette Jolivette Brown to send the case back to Orleans Parish Civil District Court, where the board filed it in July.

Attorneys for Chevron USA Inc. got the lawsuit moved to federal court in August, arguing that federal laws govern many of its claims.

Since then, lawyers have filed hundreds of pages of arguments and exhibits just on the question of which court should hear the case.

Brown scheduled arguments Wednesday.

The lawsuit says oil and gas canal and pipeline work has contributed to the erosion of wetlands that protect New Orleans when hurricanes move ashore. Corrosive saltwater from a network of oil and gas access and pipeline canals has killed plants that anchored the wetlands, letting waves sweep away hundreds of thousands of coastal land, it says.

Gov. Bobby Jindal has blasted the lawsuit as a windfall for trial lawyers and his coastal protection chief, Garret Graves, said the suit would undermine Louisiana's work with the industry to rebuild wetlands. An association of state levee districts voted to oppose the suit.

Since then, however, two coastal parishes heavily dependent on the industry have filed lawsuits of their own raising similar issues.

Earlier this month, the Louisiana Oil and Gas Association sued the state's attorney general, accusing him of illegally approving the Southeast Louisiana board's contract with lawyers who filed its lawsuit.

The association contends that Buddy Caldwell had no authority to approve the contract and that the suit will have "a chilling effect on the exploration, production, development and transportation" of Louisiana's oil and gas.

Federal appeals court halts horse slaughterhouses

A federal appeals court on Monday temporarily halted plans by companies in New Mexico and Missouri to begin slaughtering horses, continuing on-again, off-again efforts to resume domestic equine slaughter two years after Congress lifted a ban on the practice.

The 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver issued a temporary injunction barring the Department of Agriculture from inspecting the plants, which were gearing up to open in the coming days after a federal judge in Albuquerque on Friday dismissed a lawsuit by The Humane Society of the United States. The Humane Society and other animal protection groups alleged the department failed to conduct proper environmental studies when it issued permits to the slaughterhouses.

The Humane Society filed an immediate appeal and won an emergency injunction.

"Horse slaughter is a predatory, inhumane business, and we are pleased to win another round in the courts to block killing of these animals on American soil for export to Italy and Japan," said Wayne Pacelle, president and CEO of The Humane Society of the United States. "Meanwhile, we are redoubling our efforts in Congress to secure a permanent ban on the slaughter of our horses throughout North America."

Blair Dunn, who represents Valley Meat Co. of Roswell, N.M., and Rains Natural Meats of Gallatin, Mo., emphasized the order was temporary.

Court favors Abercrombie in Okla. suit over hijab

A federal appeals court has dismissed claims by an Oklahoma woman who says she wasn't hired by Abercrombie & Fitch because her headscarf conflicted with the retailer's dress code, which has since been changed.

A federal judge initially sided with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, which filed the lawsuit on behalf of Samantha Elauf. The EEOC alleged that Elauf wasn't hired in 2008 at an Abercrombie store in Tulsa's Woodland Hills Mall because her hijab violated the clothing retailer's "Look Policy."

The 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals reversed that decision Tuesday. The court said Elauf never told Abercrombie she needed a religious accommodation, even though she was wearing the headscarf during her interview.

The Ohio-based company changed its policy three years ago. It recently settled similar lawsuits in California.

Judge denies motions in WVU media rights laws

A judge has denied several motions to dismiss West Virginia Radio Corp.'s lawsuit over how West Virginia University awarded a media rights contract for sporting events.

Judge Thomas Evans on Monday rejected requests by WVU Board of Governors, the WVU Foundation and other parties to dismiss the lawsuit in Monongalia County Circuit Court. The motions were based on arguments that West Virginia Radio had failed to make a case for fraud and a violation of public procurement laws. Evans ruled these are important public policy matters and need to be heard.

The network wants Evans to stop WVU from finalizing a 12-year contract with North Carolina-based IMG College.

The judge also is hearing arguments on West Virginia Radio's motion to block the deal and reset the clock to June.

The Law Offices of David Stein - DC Prostitution Solicitation Lawyer

DC sexual solicitation lawyer from The Law Offices of David Stein will provide the experience and attention you will need. With extensive experience handling all areas of criminal defense, this is no exception We hold the highest interests for our clients and are here to provide some relief for criminal charges. DC Prostitution Free Zones are defined as restricted zones with periods of time in areas with high numbers of prostitution-related offenses. In the designated zones, it is unlawful for “a group of two or more persons to congregate on public space within that area for the purpose of engaging in prostitution or prostitution-related offenses.” A police officer will issue a warning to anyone in violation of the law explaining that they are in a Prostitution Free Zone and directing them to disperse. Ignoring or disobeying the officer’s instruction could lead to arrest, even without a second warning. Offenders convicted under the law are subject to a fine of up to $300, imprisonment for up to 180 days, or both. It is important to fight the solicitation charge vigorously not only because of the criminal penalties but also for social and professional reasons as both the arrest and conviction would most likely remain on individuals records indefinitely. Defending the solicitation charges are also particularly difficult as the complaining witnesses are generally the decoy undercover police officer. Thus such cases necessitate particular knowledge of the underlying statutory schemes as well as the particular way there are enforce by the MPD. Our experienced DC Solicitation Lawyers/DC prostitution lawyers are well adverse with the intricacy of the related law and the implementation through the undercover operations. Often times, the line between violating the law and being entrapped are crossed and if the entrapment defense properly asserted, the case may be dismissed or a not guilty verdict rendered. Your initial consultation with our criminal law DC defense lawyers expert in DC solicitation or DC prostitution cases is at no charge. For help in legal matters in need of a DC prostitution lawyer, don't hesitate to contact The Law Offices of David Stein.

McKennon Law Group - Business Litigation

McKennon Law Group, located in Newport Beach, focuses their practice in business litigation and are skilled to handle business disputes of all types. Our law firm's expertise comes from 25 years of experience resolving business disputes. Our attorneys are experts in this matter and will be the aggressive advocates needed for trial cases. With their knowledge, McKennon Law Group as a regional and nationwide reputation as one of the top business litigation law firms. We cover all types of business litigation including corporate, commercial, and smaller branches of each main category.

Court strikes down Arizona 20-week abortion ban

A federal court in San Francisco Tuesday struck down Arizona's ban on abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy.
The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the law violates a string of U.S. Supreme Court rulings starting with Roe v. Wade that guarantees a woman's right to an abortion before a fetus is able to survive outside the womb. That's generally considered to be about 24 weeks. Normal pregnancies run about 40 weeks
Several states have enacted similar bans starting at 20 weeks. But the 9th Circuit's ruling is binding only in the nine Western states under the court's jurisdiction. Idaho is the only other state in the region covered by the 9th Circuit with a similar ban.
A trial judge had ruled that the ban could take effect. U.S. District Judge James Teilborg ruled it was constitutional, partly because of concerns about the health of women and possible pain for fetuses.
But abortion-rights groups appealed that decision, saying the 20-week ban would not give some women time to carefully decide whether to abort problem pregnancies.

Court to mull Arizona's immigrant harboring ban

An appeals court is scheduled to hear arguments Tuesday in Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer's bid to let police enforce a minor section of the state's 2010 immigration law that prohibits the harboring of illegal immigrants.
The harboring ban was in effect from late July 2010 until U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton ruled in September that it was trumped by federal law and barred police from enforcing it. Brewer has asked the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals to overturn Bolton's ruling.
Brewer's lawyers argue the ban doesn't conflict with federal policies, is aimed at confronting crime and that the law's opponents haven't shown they have legal standing to challenge the prohibition. The governor's attorneys also say there's no evidence that the ban has been enforced against any people or organizations represented by a coalition of civil rights groups that have challenged the law in court.
The coalition has asked the appeals court to uphold Bolton's ruling, saying the state law is trumped by a federal harboring law that leaves no room for state regulation. The coalition also argues that Bolton has repeatedly confirmed that it has standing to challenge the harboring ban.
Another federal appeals court has barred authorities from enforcing similar harboring bans in Alabama and Georgia.

MJM Law Office, P.C. - DUII / DUI / DWI Offenses

Most people agree that driving while you are high and/or drunk is not a good idea, but it is also a very common and sometimes difficult to avoid occurrence in America’s geographically dispersed car culture.  Residents of Oregon should be aware that the state’s drunk driving laws are some of the toughest in the country, making DUII (Driving Under the Influence of Intoxicants) an extremely serious offense.  If you’ve been charged with driving under the influence, you’ll want to have an experienced Eugene DUI lawyer on your side to ensure you make the best possible decisions throughout your case.

Losing your driving privileges can create major obstacles in your everyday life.  After a DUII arrest, you are at risk of losing your license both criminally (through the court) as well as civilly (through the DMV).  A DMV hearing is used to determine whether you will keep or lose your license, regardless of whether or not you are convicted.  Long term consequences of a DUII conviction can include difficulty obtaining employment, maintaining professional licenses, and qualifying for financial aid for schools.  In addition, those offenders that are professional motor vehicle operators may lose their commercial driver’s license and be completely out of work.

http://www.mjmlawoffice.com/criminal-law/duii-dui-dwi-offenses

Cliff avoided: Congress staves off tax hikes

Past its own New Year's deadline, a weary Congress sent President Barack Obama legislation to avoid a national "fiscal cliff" of middle class tax increases and spending cuts late Tuesday night in the culmination of a struggle that strained America's divided government to the limit.

The bill's passage on a bipartisan 257-167 vote in the House sealed a hard-won political triumph for the president less than two months after he secured re-election while calling for higher taxes on the wealthy.

Moments later, Obama strode into the White House briefing room and declared, "Thanks to the votes of Republicans and Democrats in Congress I will sign a law that raises taxes on the wealthiest 2 percent of Americans while preventing tax hikes that could have sent the economy back into recession."

He spoke with Vice President Joe Biden at his side, a recognition of the former senator's role as the lead Democratic negotiator in final compromise talks with Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky.

In addition to neutralizing middle class tax increases and spending cuts taking effect with the new year, the legislation will raise tax rates on incomes over $400,000 for individuals and $450,000 for couples. That was higher than the thresholds of $200,000 and $250,000 that Obama campaigned for. But remarkably, in a party that swore off tax increases two decades ago, dozens of Republicans supported the bill at both ends of the Capitol.