|
|
|
State Supreme Court rules on illegal taxes
Law Firm Legal News |
2011/08/01 09:06
|
The state Supreme Court made it easier this week for California taxpayers to seek refunds from cities and counties, ruling that a claim of an illegal local tax can be pursued as a class action on behalf of everyone who was overcharged.
The unanimous decision Monday in a Los Angeles case overturned lower-court rulings requiring local taxpayers to file individual refund claims.
In a class action, a representative can win damages that are distributed to an entire group of people affected by the same unlawful action. Class-action status often determines whether a tax can be effectively challenged, said Paul Heidenreich, a lawyer for consumer organizations in the case.
When only one person can sue at a time, there's little incentive to do so with small amounts at stake, he said.
The ruling may not affect San Francisco, however. Deputy City Attorney Peter Keith said the city has ordinances that set rules for tax refund claims and prohibit class actions. He said the court allowed class-wide suits only when a city or county has no laws of its own regulating tax refunds.
Francis Gregorek, lawyer for the plaintiff in the Los Angeles case, said a future ruling may be needed to determine whether a city can shield itself from class actions.
Class actions have become a hotly contested legal battleground. The U.S. Supreme Court restricted their use in two California cases earlier this year, refusing to allow as many as 1.5 million women to sue Wal-Mart Stores Inc. as a group over pay and promotion practices, and rejecting class-wide arbitration of a cell phone customer's overcharge claim against ATamp;T.
Gregorek's client, Estuardo Ardon, sued Los Angeles in 2006, claiming that a city telephone tax was illegal because it was linked to a federal excise tax that had been ruled invalid. Gregorek said the suit seeks millions of dollars in refunds for all phone customers in the city and has led to challenges against similar taxes in other communities.
The case has remained on hold while state courts determined whether Ardon can represent other customers. An appellate court said he could sue only as an individual, citing the state Supreme Court's 1992 ruling that rejected class-action status for a challenge to the state's taxes on vehicles bought by Californians in other states. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Layoffs loom in Ala. court clerks' offices
Law Firm Legal News |
2011/08/01 04:05
|
A month-long notice has begun for massive layoffs in state court clerks' offices.
The Birmingham News reports that court officials say about one-third of the 750 employees in clerks' offices statewide will be laid off effective Aug. 31.
The officials say the layoffs are timed so the 255 workers will be off the state payroll before the court system's new, leaner budget takes effect Oct. 1.
The Jefferson County clerk's offices, which handle more than 75,000 filings per year, will be down to 48 full-time clerks and three temporary workers after the layoffs.
Chief Justice Sue Bell Cobb has ordered clerks' offices statewide to be closed to the public for 10 hours weekly starting in August to give the workers time to catch up on processing court documents. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Conn. court: church can't be sued by ex-principal
Law Firm Legal News |
2011/07/26 09:01
|
The Connecticut Supreme Court ruled Monday that a former Catholic school principal cannot sue the Archdiocese of Hartford on claims she was wrongly fired for not retaliating against a student, who complained about sexual remarks allegedly made by a priest now accused of abusing children.
The high court unanimously overturned a lower court ruling in favor of Patricia Dayner, former principal of St. Hedwig's School in Naugatuck. Justices said Dayner's lawsuit against the archdiocese was barred under the ministerial exception to state courts' authority to decide employment cases. The exception is based on the First Amendment right to freedom of religion, and the right of religious organizations to control their own internal affairs.
But the state Supreme Court, in its first ruling on the issue, didn't ban all labor-related lawsuits against religious institutions. Justices adopted the view of the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New York, which ruled in 2008 that courts can decide to step into church employment disputes based on the nature of the complaints and whether court action would intrude on churches' right to decide issues related to doctrine or internal governance.
Federal appeal courts have issued conflicting rulings in ministerial exception cases. The U.S. Supreme Court will take up the issue later this year, when it hears a case involving a teacher at a church-run school in Michigan and decides whether ministerial exception applies to the Americans with Disabilities Act in cases where church workers are deemed secular, and not religious, employees. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Court reverses conviction on online Obama threat
Law Firm Legal News |
2011/07/20 09:20
|
A federal appeals court on Tuesday overturned the conviction of a man who posted Internet messages threatening Barack Obama during his 2008 presidential campaign.
A divided three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that Walter Bagdasarian's violent and racist screeds against Obama were repugnant but not criminal. The court also said it was obvious the San Diego man wasn't planning to attack the candidate and that the postings were protected by Bagdasarian's free speech rights.
Bagdasarian was convicted in 2009 of two felony counts of threatening a major presidential candidate.
Bagdasarian posted several messages to a Yahoo Finance message board in October 2008, including one that called Obama a racial epithet and another that said he will have a 50 cal in the head soon — a reference to a .50 caliber gun.
A retired Air Force officer forwarded the postings to the Secret Service. Yahoo provided Bagdasarian's subscriber information to investigators, who raided his house and seized six guns and a hard drive containing an email with similar sentiments.
Bagdasarian admitted posting the messages, but said he was drunk and joking.
He waived his right to a jury trial. District Judge Marilyn L. Huff found him guilty and sentenced him to 60-days in a half-way home.
But the appeals panel said no reasonable person could have taken seriously Bagdasarian's posts. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Court: Gov't must state position on gay troop ban
Law Firm Legal News |
2011/07/12 09:23
|
A federal appeals court that has called for the immediate halt of the military's ban on openly gay troops issued an order Monday requiring the U.S. government to state whether it will continue to defend the policy's constitutionality in court.
Monday's order comes less than a week after the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco told the Obama administration to immediately cease enforcing the don't ask, don't tell policy, which could speed up its repeal.
The ruling stems from a lawsuit filed by the Log Cabin Republicans against the Department of Justice.
The gay rights group last year persuaded a lower court judge to declare the ban unconstitutional after a trial that put the Obama administration in the position of defending a policy it opposes.
DOJ attorneys have said they are defending the policy in court as they do with any law that is being challenged. They also have said the issue should be decided by Congress and not the courts.
The three-judge merits panel of the 9th Circuit said after reviewing briefs from both parties in the case, that it appears the government is not prepared to defend the policy's constitutionality.
The order was not signed by the judges and it was not known if the three jurists were the same ones who ruled last week on stopping its enforcement. |
|
|
|
|
|
Legal News World RSS Feed
