|
|
|
Idaho Supreme Court upholds grocery tax veto
Court and Trial |
2017/07/19 23:23
|
The Idaho Supreme Court on Tuesday upheld Gov. C.L. "Butch" Otter's contentious veto of legislation repealing the state's 6 percent sales tax on groceries.
The high court's decision comes after 30 state lawmakers filed a lawsuit claiming Otter took too long to veto the grocery tax repeal because he waited longer than 10 days as outlined in the Idaho Constitution.
Otter, along with other top elected officials, countered he was just following a 1978 high court ruling that said the veto deadline only kicks after it lands on his desk. The lawsuit originally singled out Secretary of State Lawerence Denney because he verified the governor's veto. Otter was later named in the challenge at the Republican governor's request because he argued that it was his veto that sparked the lawsuit.
However, the justices disagreed with Otter. Nestled inside their 21-page ruling, the court overruled the previous 1978 decision — a rare move inside the courts due to a preference to follow prior judicial precedent— because they argued the Constitution clearly states the deadline starts when the Legislature adjourns for the year. That part of the Tuesday's decision will only apply to future legislative sessions and not the grocery tax repeal case nor any other prior vetoes.
"The 1978 decision did not interpret the Constitution; it purported to rewrite an unambiguous phrase in order to obtain a desired result," the justices wrote.
Otter's spokesman did not respond to request for comment, though Otter is currently hospitalized recovering from back surgery and an infection. Denney's office also did not return request for comment.
For many Idahoans, Tuesday's ruling won't result in changes at the grocery checkout line. They will continue paying the tax and the state won't be at risk of losing the tax revenue, which helps pay for public schools and transportation projects. Instead, it's the Idaho Legislature that will face dramatic changes when handling bills at the end of each session. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Kansas faces skeptical state Supreme Court on school funding
Court and Trial |
2017/07/16 23:23
|
Attorneys for Kansas will try to convince an often skeptical state Supreme Court on Tuesday that the funding increase legislators approved for public schools this year is enough to provide a suitable education for kids statewide.
The high court is hearing arguments about a new law that phases in a $293 million increase in education funding over two years. The justices ruled in March that the $4 billion a year in aid the state then provided to its 286 school districts was inadequate, the latest in a string of decisions favoring four school districts that sued Kansas in 2010.
The state argues that the increase is sizable and that new dollars are targeted toward helping the under-performing students identified as a particular concern in the court's last decision.
But lawyers for the Dodge City, Hutchinson, Wichita and Kansas City, Kansas, school districts argue that lawmakers fell at least $600 million short of adequately funding schools over two years. They also question whether the state can sustain the spending promised by the new law, even with an income tax increase enacted this year.
The court has ruled previously that the state constitution requires legislators to finance a suitable education for every child. In past hearings, justices have aggressively questioned attorneys on both sides but have not been shy about challenging the state's arguments.
The court is expected to rule quickly. Attorneys for the districts want the justices to declare that the new law isn't adequate and order lawmakers to fix it by Sept. 1 — only a few weeks after the start of the new school year.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hearing In San Diego Unified Suit Against The College Board
Court and Trial |
2017/07/13 10:35
|
Judge Michael M. Anello will hear San Diego Unified's motion for a temporary restraining order in federal court 4 p.m. Friday, according to court records. The district filed a lawsuit Friday against the College Board and Educational Testing Services, the company that administers Advanced Placement tests, seeking to have the results of 844 voided Scripps Ranch High School AP exams released.
The district, along with 23 students, is alleging that withholding the scores is a breach of contract. The students say they would face thousands of dollars in damages if they miss out on college credits because of the decision.
An attorney for the San Diego Unified School District was in court Monday seeking a temporary restraining order on a College Board ruling to invalidate several hundred Advanced Placement exams taken at Scripps Ranch High School in May. The testing nonprofit voided the tests after learning the school did not follow proper seating protocols.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Parents of sick UK infant storm out of new court hearing
Court and Trial |
2017/07/10 10:38
|
The parents of a baby with a rare disease stormed out of a London court hearing in an emotional outburst Thursday, as the couple tried to convince a judge to let them take their critically-ill child to the United States for medical treatment.
Charlie Gard’s parents are challenging the view of Britain’s most famous children’s hospital, arguing that treatment abroad is in the best interest of the 11-month-old suffering from a rare genetic condition.
A succession of judges has backed specialists at Great Ormond Street Hospital, who argue experimental treatment in America won’t help and may cause suffering for Charlie. The parents hoped to present fresh evidence to alter that view.
Two hours into the High Court hearing, questions from Judge Nicholas Francis prompted tensions to boil over. Charlie’s mother, Connie Yates, accused Francis of misquoting her earlier statements about Charlie’s quality of life.
“We said he’s not suffering and not in pain,” Yates yelled. “If he was we wouldn’t be up here fighting.” Chris Gard then slammed his water cup down and the couple left the courtroom.
Charlie suffers from mitochondrial depletion syndrome, a rare genetic disease that has left him brain damaged and unable to breathe unaided. The hospital says there is no known cure and believes his life support systems should be turned off. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Appeals court backs Jimmy John's franchisee in labor dispute
Court and Trial |
2017/07/05 08:56
|
A company that owns 10 Jimmy John's sandwich shops in the Twin Cities was within its rights to fire six union workers who circulated posters critical of the company's sick-leave policy, a federal appeals court ruled Monday.
The full 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals reversed a three-judge appeals panel, which had affirmed a National Labor Relations Board ruling in favor of the workers, who were part of a unionization drive by the Industrial Workers of the World at shops owned by MikLin Enterprises.
The full appeals court concluded that the poster attack was "so disloyal" that it wasn't protected by federal labor law.
The posters were timed to the flu season in early 2011. They protested the company's policy against workers calling in sick without finding replacements to take their shifts, and accused the company of putting the health of its customers at risk. The poster features two identical photos of Jimmy John's sandwiches but said one was made by a healthy worker and one was made by a sick worker.
"Can't tell the difference?" the poster read. "That's too bad because Jimmy John's workers don't get paid sick days. Shoot, we can't even call in sick. We hope your immune system is ready because you're about to take the sandwich test."
The poster and a press release were distributed to more than 100 local and national news organizations, and the IWW threatened wider distribution if its demands were not met.
The NLRB concluded that MikLin violated protections for employee communications to the public that are part of an ongoing labor dispute. The three-judge appeals panel agreed. But the full appeals court said the board misapplied a controlling precedent set in a 1953 U.S. Supreme Court case that permits firings for disloyalty when the quality of a company's product is attacked, as opposed to communications targeting the employer's labor practices.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legal News World RSS Feed
