Tag Archives: supreme court

Supreme Court Sides with Goodyear Over Personal Injury Dispute


The Supreme Court handed down a unanimous decision today siding with Goodyear Tire & Rubber (GT) in a dispute regarding a $2.7 million payment the company and its lawyers were ordered to pay in a personal injury case, the AP reports.

An Arizona family injured in a 2003 motor home incident sued Goodyear after a tire failed on their motor home, causing it to flip off the road.

After settling the case in 2010, the family discovered the Goodyear hadn’t turned over key testing data.

The justices today sent the case back to a lower court to determine if  the family is entitled to the entire $2.7 million.

A federal judge said nearly all of the family’s attorney fees could be blamed on the misconduct. A federal appeals court agreed.

Read Full – https://www.thestreet.com/story/14090682/1/supreme-court-sides-with-goodyear-over-personal-injury-dispute.html

Tempe ‘squatter’ loses in court again as judges affirm lower-court ruling that case lacks merit


Steve Sussex gives a tour of the property his family has occupied for 137 years on the corner of First Street and Farmer Avenue. Sussex is in a dispute with Tempe over rights to the parcel. Ben Moffat/azcentral.com

A Tempe man whose family has squatted in a century-old house on valuable property near downtown has again lost a court decision in his ongoing battle to keep his land.

A three-judge panel from the Arizona Court of Appeals said last week that a Superior Court judge was correct in tossing out Steve Sussex’s case against the city of Tempe because it had no legal merit.

But the man’s 12-year turf war remains far from resolved. Though Sussex can’t prove he rightfully owns the land, the city has so far failed in its effort to oust him. The case — and the land — remain in limbo.

Sussex’s attorney, Jack Wilenchik, said Monday he would appeal to the state Supreme Court. A separate court case, with Tempe asking a court to remove Sussex from the property, is still pending at the Superior Court level.

Wilenchik has fought the city’s move to eject Sussex, arguing in a counterclaim that there are problems with the city’s claim to title as well.

“I haven’t been able to get him title to the land, but the city hasn’t been able to eject him, either,” Wilenchik said. “So it’s been the same as its been for the last 120 years.”

Full Read – http://www.azcentral.com/story/news/local/tempe/2017/03/06/tempe-squatter-loses-court-again-judges-affirm-lower-court-ruling-steve-sussex/98820154/

 

New York Women Can Now Get Legal Late-Term Abortions in More Cases

By Christina Cauterucci

New York medical practitioners can now provide abortions after 24 weeks of gestation in more cases, thanks to an opinion released by Attorney General Eric T. Schneiderman on Wednesday. In response to a query from the state comptroller’s office, Schneiderman wrote that the state’s current abortion law runs counter to Supreme Court rulings by criminalizing abortions after 24 weeks of pregnancy except to save the pregnant woman’s life.

Drawing from multiple Supreme Court decisions, the opinion concludes that, to stay within constitutional lines, New York must also make exceptions to the 24-week limit if the pregnant woman’s health is at risk and if the fetus becomes unviable. The state law, passed in 1970, will remain in effect until the state legislature decides to ax it, but the New York Times reports that Schneiderman’s opinion will allow hospitals and other abortion providers to perform late-term abortions without fear of prosecution.

 An OB/GYN at the NewYork-Presbyterian Hospital/Weill Cornell Medical Center told the Times that hospitals have previously had to seek wisdom from ethics committees and sometimes wait until a pregnant woman’s health got so bad that her life was definitely at risk, just to give doctors “institutional cover to do what we thought was right all along.” Legislation proposed in 2013 would have modified the state’s abortion law to fit with court precedent, but Republicans in the state legislature blocked it.

Court rejects state’s appeal in KKK highway cleanup case

Dismissing an appeal on a technicality, Georgia’s highest court granted a victory to a Ku Klux Klan group that has been seeking for years to participate in a state-run highway cleanup program

Dismissing an appeal on a technicality, Georgia’s highest court granted a victory to a Ku Klux Klan group that has been seeking for years to participate in a state-run highway cleanup program.

The Georgia Supreme Court on Tuesday rejected the state’s appeal of a lower court decision that the state had violated the KKK group’s free speech rights. The Department of Transportation filed its appeal incorrectly, leaving the high court without authority to consider its merits, the opinion said.

The state attorney general’s office, which represents the department, is reviewing the decision and considering its options, spokesman Nicholas Genesi said in an email.

The north Georgia KKK group applied to join the state’s Adopt-A-Highway program in May 2012, hoping to pick up litter along part of Route 515 in the Appalachian Mountains. The program was started in 1989 to get volunteers to clean up sections of roads in the state. In exchange, the Department of Transportation posts a sponsorship sign along the road with the program logo and the volunteer group’s name.

Read more here: http://www.miamiherald.com/news/nation-world/article87664407.html#storylink=cpy

Merely doing business in Delaware not enough for lawsuit

, The News Journal 11:44 a.m. EDT April 21, 2016

High court overturns decision regarding whether Delaware has legal oversight over businesses registered in state

STORY HIGHLIGHTS

  • The Delaware Supreme Court has issued a ruling over a decades-old decision regarding jurisdiction.
  • It overturns a ruling that says corporations registered in Delaware are subject to state jurisdiction.
  • The ruling was 4-1 and involves an Atlanta auto-parts supplier.

An out-of-state company can no longer be sued in Delaware merely because it does business within the state, the Delaware Supreme Court has ruled.

Under a 1988 state Supreme Court ruling, a plaintiff could sue a company in Delaware for a personal injury or other tort claim that occurred in another state. That meant a large retail chain operating a store in Delaware or a company with an office in the state could be vulnerable to a Delaware lawsuit simply because it did business here.

However, in this week’s rare 4-1 split decision, the Supreme Court reversed that holding in Genuine Parts Co. v. Cepec. The opinion was authored by Delaware Supreme Court Chief Justice Leo E. Strine.

“This is a positive for companies not incorporated in Delaware, but do business in Delaware,” said Donald W. Durandetta, a professor of business at Wilmington University. “It is increased protection for doing business in Delaware.”

Plaintiffs Ralph and Sandra Cepec are Georgia residents who sued automobile equipment supplier Genuine Parts Co., the parent company of NAPA AutoParts. Genuine is a Georgia corporation headquartered in Atlanta and operates more than 60,000 retail stores throughout the nation, including about 15 in Delaware.

Ralph Cepec worked for Genuine Parts in a Jacksonville, Florida, warehouse between 1988 and 1991. He filed a personal injury lawsuit in Delaware saying he was exposed to asbestos during his employment, causing mesothelioma and other illnesses.

Last year, the Cepecs sued Genuine Parts in Delaware, despite that than 1 percent of its stores and employees are based in Delaware and less than 1 percent of its revenue comes from the state, according to the court’s opinion. Genuine Parts is registered to do business in Delaware, giving the state’s court system general jurisdiction over the company under Delaware law.

The case started in the Delaware Superior Court, which upheld the state’s jurisdiction over Genuine Parts, citing the state Supreme Court’s 1988 decision in Sternberg v. O’Neil. Genuine Parts appealed to the Supreme Court, which reversed the lower court. In the decision, the high court ruled plaintiffs can only file a lawsuit against a company in Delaware if the claim resulted from the defendant’s connection to the state. A plaintiff no longer pursue a claim in Delaware just because a company does business here.

Plaintiffs can still file lawsuits in Delaware against national corporations if the injury occurred in the state or there is some other connection.

Read Full Article – http://www.delawareonline.com/story/news/2016/04/20/merely-doing-business-delaware-not-enough-lawsuit/83293736/