Category Archives: Supreme Court
Supreme Court – The latest news about Supreme Court from the Lawstarz Blog – Latest news and coverage of the U.S. Supreme Court.
Caesars bankruptcy heads to showdown with U.S. watchdog
| CHICAGO
The U.S. government’s bankruptcy watchdog objected on Monday to a Caesars Entertainment Corp subsidiary’s proposal to exit Chapter 11, threatening to derail a largely consensual plan to slash $10 billion of debt.
The Caesars subsidiary, Caesars Entertainment Operating Co Inc (CEOC), filed an $18 billion bankruptcy in January 2015 amid allegations by creditors that its private equity-backed parent had looted the unit of its best assets and stripped debt guarantees.
Feuding parties made a peace deal in September that included a $5 billion contribution by Caesars to the unit’s reorganization plan in exchange for releases from billions of dollars in potential legal claims.
In a filing with the U.S. Bankruptcy Court in Chicago, the U.S. Trustee objected to the releases and the exculpation of “a wide array of parties for acts far beyond the plan or the Chapter 11 cases.” The U.S. Trustee called the releases “blanket immunity.”
Full Article – http://www.reuters.com/article/caesars-bankruptcy-idUSL1N1DM200
The 10 Most Ridiculous Lawsuits of All Time
Some people will try anything to make a million. Ever thought of suing someone because they look like you? Check out this and other frivolous lawsuits for a laugh, but don’t try them yourself! Frivolous lawsuits very rarely make it through the courts, and usually wind up costing the plaintiff.
- Do Beautiful Women Really Come to Life When You Drink Bud Light? 1991, Richard Overton sued Anheuser-Busch for false and misleading advertising under Michigan State law. The complaint specifically referenced ads involving, among other things, fantasies of beautiful women in tropical settings that came to life for two men driving a Bud Light truck. In addition to two claims of false advertising, Mr. Overton included a third claim in his complaint in which he claimed to have suffered emotional distress, mental injury, and financial loss in excess of $10,0000 due to the misleading Bud Light ads. The court dismissed all claims. For more information about this lawsuit, click here.
- If you can’t sue the system, sue yourself. 1995, Robert Lee Brock sued himself for $5 million. He claimed that he had violated his own civil rights and religious beliefs by allowing himself to get drunk and commit crimes which landed him in the Indian Creek Correctional Center in Virginia, serving a 23 year sentence for grand larceny and breaking and entering. What could he possibly have to gain by suing himself? Since being in prison prevented him from having an income, he expected the state to pay. This case was thrown out.
- Criminals need not bear the responsibility for their crimes alone when the real money is in Hollywood.1996, the family of Patsy Ann Byers sued Oliver Stone, Warner Brother, and others involved in the making and distribution of the movie Natural Born Killers for an unspecified amount. They claimed that the movie caused Sarah Edmondson and Benjamin Darrus to go on a crime spree which resulted in Edmonson shooting Byers during a robbery, leaving her paralyzed from the chest down. The lawsuit was originally filed in 1995, against Edmonson and Darrus, the actual perpetrators of the crime spree. Stone and the others involved with the film were added in 1996. The portion of the case aimed at Stone and his associates was dismissed in 2001.
- Since when were haunted houses frightening? 2000, Cleanthi Peters sued Universal Studios for $15,000. She claimed to have suffered extreme fear, mental anguish, and emotional distress due to visiting Universal Studios’ Halloween Horror Nights haunted house, which she said was too scary.
- When kids commit heinous crimes, who is responsible? The makers of every video game they’ve ever played, of course. 2001, Linda Sanders and other family members of Columbine High School shooting victims sued 25 movie and video game companies for $5 billion, in a class action lawsuit.They claimed that were it not for movies includingThe Basketball Diaries and videos games including Doom, Duke Nukem, Quake, Mortal Kombat, Resident Evil, Mech Warrior, Wolfenstein, Redneck Rampage, Final Fantasy, and Nightmare Creatures, the massacre would not have occurred, and that the makers and distributors of the movies and games were partly to blame for their loved ones’ deaths. The case was thrown out and the plaintiffs were ordered to compensate the video game and movie companies for their legal fees.
- Negligent security is a legitimate claim, when you’re the victim, not the perpetrator! 2002, Edward Brewer sued Providence Hospital for $2 million. He claimed that the hospital was negligent because it had not prevented him from raping one of its patients. The judge ruled that any damage Brewer suffered due to his crime was his responsibility for choosing to commit the crime, and that the hospital had no legal duty to protect him from that choice.
Read The Rest – http://www.the-injury-lawyer-directory.com/ridiculous_lawsuits.html
Frivolous Lawsuit Over Sandy Hook Deaths Dismissed
The frivolous lawsuit filed by a minority of Sandy Hook Elementary school parents against Bushmaster and Remington Arms has been dismissed.
A Superior Court judge has thrown out the lawsuit against the gun maker brought by the families of the Sandy Hook tragedy.
In a 54-page decision filed Friday afternoon, Judge Barbara Bellis granted a motion to strike the entire lawsuit brought against the gun maker,Remington Outdoor Company, the dealer, Camfour Inc. and the company that owned the gun store, Riverview Sales where A___ L___’*s mother bought the assault rifle.
The judge ruled the lawsuit does not satisfy the exception to federal law preventing lawsuits against gun manufacturers for the actions of gun owners under either the federal Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA) or the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act (CUTPA).
“Although PLCAA provides a narrow exception under which plaintiffs may maintain an action for negligent entrustment of a firearm, the allegations in the present case do not fit within the common-law tort of negligent entrustment under well-established Connecticut law,” the judge wrote. “A plaintiff under CUTPA must allege some kind of consumer, competitor, or other commcercial relationship with a defendant, and the plaintiffs here have alleged no such relationship.”
We commented on the sad absurdity of this case back in February.
The exploitative lawsuit filed by Koshoff, Sterling, and Mesner-Hage is based on the theory of “negligent entrustment.” The plaintiff’s argument is that the Freedom Group, which owns Bushmaster Firearms, the manufacturer of the XM15-E2S, marketed their guns in such a way as to encourage violent crazy people to buy them. Of course, the Sandy Hook murderer didn’t buy the carbine he used in his attack. He murdered his own mother to gain access to it.
But hey, reality be damned; lawyers wanna get paid.
Further, these shysters are arguing that AR-15s—the most common rifle sold in the United States year after year, used in more than a half-dozen kinds of formal shooting competitions, for informal target shooting, home defense, hunting, and simply for fun—is a “weapon of war” that no civilian should have.
The semi-automatic AR-15s sold to U.S. civilians, of course, are not used in combat by any known military on earth.
Militaries instead use selective-fire M16s and M4s, which American civilians have not been able to buy from manufacturers at any price since the Hughes Amendment passed as part of the Firearm Owners Protection Act in 1986.
The vultures of Koskoff Koskoff and Bieder are arguing that the most common rifle sold in the United States, which is, as a subset of rifles is one of the least likely instruments of murder in the nation, should be banned. Put bluntly, these attorneys appear to be hoping to find a way to sue gun companies out of existence, and get rich in the process.
The judge has a very simple choice in this case.
She can allow the continuance of an obviously frivolous lawsuit filed by unscrupulous attorneys, and set the stage for every company in the world to be sued out of their existence due to their choice of advertising, or she can throw this case out.
Let’s hope Bridgeport Superior Court Judge Barbara Bellis is not among the world’s crazy people.
Clearly, Judge Barbara Bellis did not buy the argument made by lead attorney for the plaintiffs, Joshua Koskoff, who argued that the American people are “notoriously incompetent,” and unfit to own guns in common use.
Full Article – http://bearingarms.com/bob-o/2016/10/14/breaking-frivolous-lawsuit-sandy-hook-deaths-dismissed/
Hillary is Disqualified from Holding Any Federal Office – Based On The Law
We’re so used to complicated problems that we occasionally overlook the obvious. Like fiddling around with some gadget, trying to get it to work when all you needed to do is plug it in.
Could the solution to the “problem” of Hillary running for president be just that simple? Did she really break the law — and would the penalty for breaking that law disqualify her from being president? The answers to those two questions are “yes,” and “yes.”
If someone were to ask you if there is a law that Hillary has broken that should end her campaign for president right now, you’d probably answer that the laws broken by Hillary are innumerable. But could you mention a specific law? Well, now you can, and it was hidden in plain sight. If we laypersons can figure it out, it sort of makes you wonder what the FBI was doing when investigating Hillary’s email server.
Apparently, the FBI forgot to visit the Cornell Law Library. Word for word from the Cornell Law Library Former United States Attorney General Michael Mukasey tells MSNBC that not only is Hillary Clinton’s private email server illegal, it “disqualifies” her from holding any federal office. Very specifically points to one federal law, Title 18. Section 2071.
So here’s the one law you need to know that should terminate her presidential campaign:
For those of us who do not have United States Code committed to memory, here’s what it says:”(a) Whoever willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, or destroys, or attempts to do so, or, with intent to do so takes and carries away any record, proceeding, map, book, paper, document, or other thing, filed or deposited with any clerk or officer of any court of the United States, or in any public office, or with any judicial or public officer of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both. (b) Whoever, having the custody of any such record, proceeding, map, book, document, paper, or other thing, willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, falsifies, or destroys the same, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both; and shall forfeit his office and be disqualified from holding any office under the United States. As used in this subsection, the term “office” does not include the office held by any person as a retired officer of the Armed Forces of the United States.”
Yes, it explicitly states “shall forfeit his office and be disqualified from holding any office under the United States.”
So, yes, it really is that simple. Hillary is “disqualified from holding any office under the United States.” So the only question left really should be, who is going to replace her on the Democrat ticket?