A Texas jury awarded damages of $242 million to a Dallas family after finding that defects in the family’s Lexus sedan caused injuries to their two children during a rear-end collision, the law firm representing the plaintiffs said on Friday.
A Chesterfield woman says a used car dealership threatened to repossess her newly purchased vehicle and is keeping her down payment.
She thought the car was hers, but then several days later she got a call from the dealer telling her to bring it back or it would be repossessed.
Yes Auto Sales is saying no. It won't refund Tryphena Whitfield's down payment, claiming she and her co-signer did not complete a job verification form. Whitfield says the form is a ruse to keep her money.
The family of a Roswell college student who was killed during a suspected hazing-related incident at Louisiana State University filed a $25 million federal lawsuit Thursday against the university, fraternity and several fraternity members, Channel 2 Action News reported.
Maxwell Gruver, 18, died of alcohol poisoning during an alleged hazing incident at the Phi Delta Theta fraternity house in September 2017, AJC.com previously reported.
A 46-year-old woman who donned a ski mask and wielded a fake gun when she robbed a Southeast Portland bookstore has filed a $49,000 lawsuit against her doctor and pharmacist, claiming they gave her a dangerous mix of prescription drugs that caused her to spiral out of control.
The lawsuit filed by Hilary Leah Bishop is virtually unheard of in criminal justice and medical circles: Convicted felons rarely if ever sue their medical providers for the crimes they’ve committed.
One giant problem with Melvin Chapman’s Aug. 7 lawsuit and that specific claim – Chapman doesn’t live anywhere. He died more than a year ago.
The National Law Review recently broke the news that the deceased are filing lawsuits. Chapman’s case was brought under a federal telemarketing law that some feel invites abuses in the legal system.
Read the source article at forbes.com.
The suit, filed in Federal District Court in Denver this week, alleges that Colorado officials are on a “crusade” against Mr. Phillips because he refuses to make cakes that violate his religious beliefs. In recent years, his lawyers say, he has been targeted by potential customers eager to test the limit of the law.
ATLANTA (CN) – Attorneys for cigarette giant Philip Morris asked the 11th Circuit on Wednesday to order a new trial after a jury awarded $20 million in punitive damages to a former smoker who claimed her decision to take up the habit was influenced by the company’s ads.
Alternatively, Philip Morris asked the 11th Circuit panel to affirm a district court order vacating the $20.7 million award and reject the ex-smoker’s demand to reinstate the judgment in her favor.
Sometimes the line between what is and isn’t an “advertisement” within the meaning of the TCPA isn’t quite clear. But as illustrated by today’s ruling in Legg v. Ptz Ins. Agency, No. 14 C 10043, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 137811, at *4 (N.D. Ill. Aug. 15, 2018), it’s better to be safe than sorry in determining when a message might be considered one.
WHITE PLAINS, N.Y. (Legal Newsline) – A New York city alleges that discharges from New York Stewart International Airport and Stewart Air National Guard Base caused contamination of its water supply.
The city of Newburgh filed a complaint on Aug. 6 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York against United States of America, United States Department of Defense, the state of New York, et al. citing the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act and other counts.
Let’s start with the basics: The President has broad powers under Article II of the U.S. Constitution, both as the nation’s chief executive and as commander-in-chief of the armed forces. The consensus likely to emerge in coming days is that President Trump was within his authority to revoke the security clearance of former C.I.A. Director John Brennan, even if the President did so without indulging many of the normal protocols—like consulting with his own director of national intelligence, for example.
Some public intellectuals, most notably Alan Dershowitz, have suggested that there are no limits whatsoever on a president’s exercise of any power the Constitution explicitly or implicitly vests in him. This view is, frankly, preposterous. No rational legal scholar would say that a president may take a bribe to pardon somebody, or that he may, even when discharging one of his express constitutional duties, target citizens based on their ethnicity or gender.
In other words, an otherwise legal act may be done with the kind of intent that would render that act, well, illegal. President Trump has done something that, on the face of it, seems like a legal act. The question is why he did it.
John Brennan has been a vocal critic of President Trump. Just the day before his clearance was revoked, he tweeted, directly to the President, “It’s astounding how often you fail to live up to minimum standards of decency, civility, [and] probity. Seems like you will never understand what it means to be president, nor what it takes to be a good, decent, [and] honest person. So disheartening, so dangerous for our Nation.”
This is, of course, something any citizen is allowed to think, and to express—without fear of reprisal from the government. The President is part of the government. That is why, just this past May, a federal judge ruled that President Trump had run afoul of the First Amendment when he blocked twitter users from his account simply because he found their opinions and ideas off-putting.
Two principles undergird First Amendment reasoning in federal cases: first, the more political speech is, the more protected it is; and second, the less popular and more controversial is it, the more protected it is.
This makes sense. As the Supreme Court once noted, “[F]ew … would march our sons and daughters off to war to preserve the citizen’s right [watch pornography in a theater.]” We do, on the other hand, march our sons and daughters off to war to preserve our freedom to express ideas around such things as government, philosophy, and religion. And I don’t need to the First Amendment to march along a sidewalk with a sign proclaiming my affection for Mom, apple pie, and Uncle Sam. I do need it when I take to the streets, the airwaves, or a social media platform to speak truth (or my perception of it) to power.
So if the President stripped Brennan of his security clearance to punish Brennan for his controversial political dissension, then he violated the First Amendment. But this brings up another issue: Would a court even entertain such a case?
Federal courts tend to avoid the kinds of issues that are 1) assigned to the other branches (the Congress or the President) by the text of the Constitution itself; 2) beyond the competence of the legal system to resolve; or 3) too hot for a court to handle—because it’s the subject of a fiery political fight. This case could involve all three of those categories of what courts call “political questions” (and therefore not legal questions).
First, the Constitution assigns matters involving the military, foreign affairs, and national security to both Congress (under Article I) and the President (under Article II). Second, there are no legal precedents involving a president using security clearances to even baldly political scores—it’s never happened, at least not this openly. Third, a court might say that it would embarrass the United States, and its judiciary, for judges to wade into a political conflagration that might better be resolved by Congress or, as is more likely in this case, the voters when next they have their chance to deliver their own verdict.
So even if President Trump has behaved in a way that does violence to the First Amendment, courts might render him to the judgment of the people, not judges.
The family of a 13-year-old drowning victim who was pulled to the surface of a Murrieta high school pool by his classmates, with little to no help from lifeguards, Tuesday detailed an $11 million settlement with the Murrieta Valley Unified School District.
Fitbit reached a settlement deal resolving a class action lawsuit that claims the fitness device’s sleep-tracking capability is defective. Fitbit will provide affected customers with a $5 voucher that will not expire and can be used on Fitbit’s website, as well as a $10 cash payment.
AstraZeneca has agreed to pay $110 million to settle two whistleblower lawsuits brought by the State of Texas that the company targeted the Texas Medicaid system with a fraudulent marketing scheme for its expensive and powerful atypical antipsychotic Seroquel.
Among the growing list of toxins and contaminants that can form the basis of a products liability claim, formaldehyde has shown signs of potential for litigation in recent years. Formaldehyde, a known carcinogen, can be found in a variety of household products and construction materials.
The U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (JPML) recently heard arguments regarding the consolidation of the growing number of hernia mesh lawsuits filed against C.R. Bard and its Davol subsidiary.
You don't have credit card details available. You will be redirected to update payment method page. Click OK to continue.