Law Buzzer

Archive for the ‘Supreme Court’ Category

According to the Second Amendment of the Bill of Rights, Americans have the right to hold and bear arms for self-defense, an ability that aggressive Michigan criminal defense lawyers work hard to protect. However, in recent years handgun bans in various major cities in the United States have made that a difficult task. Fortunately, in a recent U.S. Supreme Court decision, the rights of

American citizens to keep and bear arms were upheld, extending to state and local levels. Since 1982, the Midwest city of Chicago has had some of the strictest handgun laws in the country. Residents were not allowed to own handguns for personal use, even in their homes.

Despite these harsh firearm laws, changes were set in motion in 2008. This was when the United States Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment assertion that the rights of individuals to possess a gun for self-defense applied to the nation’s capitol. However, since Washington D.C. is a federal city and not a state, it was not specified whether or not the ruling extended to other state or municipal laws.

Fortunately, early Monday morning the Supreme Court clarified themselves. In a 5-4 ruling, the court reasserted the constitutional protection of the Second Amendment to include state and municipal laws, ultimately having both national and local implications. According to gun-rights advocates, this victory for the Second Amendment could potentially allow constitutional appeals to restrictions on handguns be heard and granted nationwide.

As evidenced by the decision handed down from the Supreme Court, the legal process is a complex and ever-changing one. If you have been accused of criminal charges, it is important to find out all your options before proceeding with any type of defense. For this, it is in your best interest to contact knowledgeable Michigan criminal defense attorneys for assistance. Doing so immediately can provide superior legal representation designed to protect your individual rights and freedoms including the right to own handguns for personal use.

Incoming search terms:

• www thetexascriminallawattorneys com/houston-criminal-lawyers (7)

The Supreme Court is a term which has different meanings in different jurisdictional areas, but it is basically the highest court for the jurisdictional area which the court refers to. So in Australia for example, each state has a Supreme Court. There is a court of this type in New South Wales, Queensland, Victoria, Western Australia and South Australia. In New South Wales (NSW) this court is actually the longest continuously operating court or tribunal in the Asia Pacific Region. The court was originally created by an Act entitled “Act to provide for the better administration of justice in NSW and Van Diemen’s Land and for the more effectual government thereof” and is commonly numbered as “4 Geo. IV, c. 96″. It entered into force on 19 July 1823. It was proclaimed in Sydney on 17 May 1824. It is known as the Third Charter of Justice of NSW.

Subsequently as the colonies in Australia developed greater autonomy in their legal and political affairs, new legislation was passed to give effect to the Jurisdiction of the Court. When Australia became a Federation and the constitutional position of the states became entrenched, new legislation was passed to make the Court an official organ of the NSW legal system under the Constitution Act 1902 (NSW), Part 9. Later on, in NSW, this was superseded by the the Supreme Court Act 1970 (NSW) and much later on the procedure to be used in the court was altered by the Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW). The NSW Supreme Court is now one of the busiest court jurisdictions in the Southern Hemisphere with a very active list in a number of areas such as equity, building and construction, commercial, criminal, probate, admiralty and other matters.

On March 3, 2009 the United States Supreme Court ruled a damaging verdict to the pharmaceutical industry and a good verdict for consumers. A 6-3 decisional vote by the Supreme Court in the case of Wyeth vs. Levine upheld the right for patients to sue drug manufacturers for complications arising from the use of a prescription drug despite the drug’s approval from the Food and Drug Administration. The Wyeth pharmaceuticals company pressed the Supreme Court to dictate that any patient who is injured by the use of an FDA approved prescription cannot file suit against the manufacturer of the drug giving that manufacturer immunity from prosecution. However, the Supreme Court rejected this plea stating that Congress never intended to enact a sweeping law to preempt personal injury claims against drug makers and that personal injury claims against drug manufacturers helps to improve the public health and federal safety laws in the area. At Rosen Louik & Perry, we couldn’t agree with the Supreme Court more in this case.

In early 2000, musician Diana Levine was awarded $6.7 million dollars in damages by a Vermont state court for the loss of her lower right arm due to the intravenous application of the FDA approved drug Phenergan. Known in its generic form as promethazine, is an antihistamine used to treat allergic reactions and was approved for intravenous injection by the FDA in 1995. Unfortunately, the administration of the chemical into Levine’s artery caused an onset of Gangrene which forced an eventual amputation of the limb. In her personal injury lawsuit Levine accused Wyeth of failing to properly warn consumers of the dangers and complications that could arise from the use of Phenergan. Wyeth countered the suit stating that the FDA’s approval should be the final word on the drug’s safety and terms of use and drug manufacturers, Wyeth included, should be exempt from responsibility. In, 2009 they appealed the case to the US Supreme Court in an effort to have the ruling overturned. To their dismay it was not and as a result Wyeth ceased the production of Phenergan.

Despite the FDA’s most sincere efforts to keep people safe from harmful drugs, there have been and will continue to be instances in which hazardous medicines slip into the public market. It is the responsibility of the drug manufacturer to test their products and ensure that consumers have proper knowledge of all significant impacts of the drug. Each year more than 70,000 serious injuries and over 15,000 deaths result from routine utilization of prescription medicines in the marketplace. These victims and their attorneys hold drug manufacturers accountable to insure this doesn’t happen to more people.  The FDA needs to rigorously monitor the use and application of current drugs on the market and evaluate cases of related complications justly. In a situation in which a person is harmed by the use of an FDA approved drug the proper action must be taken against the parties responsible. It is important to choose the right attorney to represent the offended party. Our personal injury attorneys specialize in this area and are well equipped to accurately evaluate the merits of each case and establish the best legal strategy for acquiring the reparations that are due.

Do not waste time when deciding to file a personal injury suit. Statutes of Limitation generally limit the time to file a personal injury suit to 2 years and it is always advantageous to file sooner than later to keep memory of the events most accurate.

Rosen Louik & Perry has been representing plaintiffs in personal injury cases for over 70 years. We have expert attorneys who will fully dedicate themselves to your case and help you obtain the best results possible. If you or someone you know has recently been injured from the administration of a prescription drug or FDA approved product please contact our firm today for a free consultation and case review.

Incoming search terms:

• www thetexascriminallawattorneys com/houston-criminal-lawyers (4)

Supreme Court Case doesn’t Open the Floodgates to Discharging Student Loans in Bankruptcy.

The United States Supreme Court affirmed a lower court ruling that discharged Francisco J. Espinosa’s student loans in bankruptcy. The ruling was initially haled as a victory for borrowers and debtors. However, a closer look at the narrow ruling by the High Court establishes that debtors must establish that a student loan constitutes an undue hardship to discharge student loans through bankruptcy.

Mr. Espinosa had taken out four student loans to attend trade school. Four years later, he filed for Chapter 13 bankruptcy, and offered a repayment plan to the court, proposing that he repay the principal over five years, without interest. The bankruptcy judge approved his proposed repayment plan. The lender received notice of the proposed plan, but failed to file an objection. The court approved the plan. The lender failed to appeal from the court’s order within the time permitted by law. Mr. Espinosa repaid the principal on the loan pursuant to the repayment plan approved by the court, and the court discharged the outstanding interest. Years later, the lender attempted to reopen the bankruptcy court case and set aside the discharge of the interest.

On appeal, the lender argued that the bankruptcy court judge did not make a finding that the student loans constituted an undue hardship for Mr. Espinosa, as required by the Bankruptcy Code. In considering the case, Justice Clarence Thomas, writing for the Supreme Court specifically noted that the bankruptcy judge had erred in failing to make the required finding of undue hardship. However, because the lender had failed to timely object, and failed to file the proper appeal, the case had grown stale. “The bankruptcy court’s failure to find undue hardship before confirming Espinosa’s plan was a legal error,” Justice Thomas wrote in the majority opinion. “But the order remains enforceable and binding on United because United had notice of the error and failed to object or timely appeal.”

Noting that the Supreme Court specifically found that the bankruptcy judge had committed legal error probably precludes or severely limits the precedential value of the Espinosa case. In this case, the discharge came about because the lender slept on its right to object and timely appeal. If similarly situated lenders did not already have good reason to be vigilant for debtors seeking to discharge some or all of their student loan obligations in bankruptcy, they certainly will after the Espinosa decision.

Rather than being a great victory for debtors and borrowers, the Espinosa case actually reaffirmed that the Bankruptcy Code requires judges to make a determination of undue hardship. Failure to do so would constitute reversible error in other cases under different circumstances. Consequently, the Supreme Court’s decision does not open the floodgates to student loan discharges.

Incoming search terms:

• www thetexascriminallawattorneys com/houston-criminal-lawyers (4)

If there is one subject that gets everyone hot and bothered, it is the United States Supreme Court. The highest court in the land is the focus of so much attention because it has such far reaching power. The court has recently become much more conservative, but that may not mean what many conservatives really want.

The United States Supreme Court is the most powerful governmental agency in the United States. Well, maybe after the Federal Reserve! The reason for this is the Supreme Court can overrule any law and can dictate how things should be handled in legal issues. This ranges from whether alleged terrorists can be held at Guantanamo without legal recourse to whether major league baseball violates anti-trust laws. This power is all the more prevalent given the fact the Supreme Court justices serve for life or until they retire.

The great Supreme Court war is all about getting “your” justice on the court. Conservatives want conservative justices on the court. Liberals want liberal justices on the court. The fight tooth and nail to get them there, only to find that most justices don’t fit in a nice round whole once they get there. Many a conservative justice has become liberal and the recent appointment of Sotomayor is actually going to be a surprise to liberals as she has some very conservative views on certain subjects.

Perhaps the most ironic thing about these titles is they often do not carry the same meaning as they have in political discourse. The Court is turning conservative, so let’s take a look at that. One of the prime elements of conservative political views is government should be small. A conservative Supreme Court, however, does not take this view nor do they believe government should be large. Instead, a conservative Court is going to give the legislative [Congress] and executive [President] plenty of room to do whatever it wishes. As you’ve probably noticed recently, this leads to more government instead of less.

Admittedly, this twisted result is not always the case. A conservative Court will tend to view things as written in the Constitution. This means there will be no limits on guns and Miranda rights may be in trouble. The issue of abortion is always a hot one. The Court is unlikely to reverse it in one fell swoop, but will instead most likely chip away at the ruling over the years until the ultimate result is already apparent for everyone to see. That is, of course, unless a number of liberal justices are brought on board.

Incoming search terms:

• www thetexascriminallawattorneys com/houston-criminal-lawyers (7)