|
|
|
Michigan won't recognize same-sex marriages
Court Issues |
2014/03/28 16:26
|
Michigan won't recognize more than 300 same-sex marriages performed last weekend before a court halted a decision that opened the door to gay nuptials, Gov. Rick Snyder said Wednesday.
The announcement came a day after an appeals court indefinitely stopped any additional same-sex marriages. It will likely take months for the court to make its own judgment about whether a Michigan constitutional amendment that says marriage only is between a man and a woman violates the U.S. Constitution.
U.S. District Judge Bernard Friedman struck down the gay marriage ban Friday.
Four counties took the extraordinary step of granting licenses Saturday before the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ordered a temporary halt. The stay was extended indefinitely on Tuesday.
Snyder acknowledged same-sex couples "had a legal marriage." But because of the court's stay, he added, the gay marriage ban has been restored.
The governor's move closes the door, at least for now, to certain benefits reserved solely for married couples. The American Civil Liberties Union said more than 1,000 Michigan laws are tied to marriage.
"We did our own homework and I believe this is a reasonable legal position to take based on the available literature and law," Snyder told reporters.
Other elected officials have urged the Obama administration to recognize the marriages for federal benefits. The U.S. Justice Department, which previously said it was monitoring the situation, did not immediately comment after Snyder's announcement. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lawsuit says California mortgage money mishandled
Court Issues |
2014/03/17 20:43
|
Three community assistance organizations sued Gov. Jerry Brown and other state officials on Friday, alleging the state improperly diverted nearly $370 million that was intended to help homeowners struggling with foreclosures.
The lawsuit filed in Sacramento County Superior Court says the money was siphoned off to the state's general fund as California wrestled with a massive budget deficit and has never been repaid. The money was part of the $25 billion settlement between major banks and nearly every state in 2012, with California receiving the largest share.
H.D. Palmer, a spokesman for the Department of Finance, said in a statement that the administration is confident that its budget actions are legally sound.
The suit was filed by attorney Neil Barofsky, who previously was inspector general for the federal bank bailout. The suit alleges the money is needed to help affected homeowners "weather the economic storm that continues to sweep so many families out of their homes."
"As a result of these diversions, large numbers of homeowners who are eligible for loan modifications or other relief have been left stranded, and countless fiscally imperiled California homeowners remain unaware of the full scope of their rights," the lawsuit states.
Barofsky filed the suit on behalf of three California-based community organizations that the suit says have helped thousands of homeowners: National Asian American Coalition, COR Community Development Corporation and National Hispanic Christian Leadership Conference. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
High court sides with parent who fled with child
Court Issues |
2014/03/07 22:48
|
The Supreme Court has made it harder for a parent in a custody dispute to seek the immediate return of a child under an international treaty to deter child abduction.
The justices ruled unanimously Wednesday that a one-year clock begins ticking when a child is taken out of its country of residence, even if the parent left behind cannot determine where the child is living. In the one-year period, the Hague Convention on child abduction gives judges little option but to return the child to its home country.
After a year, judges have more discretion and must take account of evidence that the child is settled in its new home. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Court weighs securities fraud class-action cases
Court Issues |
2014/03/05 21:07
|
The Supreme Court is considering whether to abandon a quarter-century of precedent and make it tougher for investors to band together to sue corporations for securities fraud.
The justices hear arguments Wednesday in an appeal by Halliburton Co. that seeks to block a class-action lawsuit claiming the energy services company inflated its stock price.
A group of investors says it lost money when Halliburton's stock price dropped after revelations the company misrepresented revenues, understated its liability in asbestos litigation and overstated the benefits of a merger.
Justices threw out the company's first attempt to block the lawsuit in 2011. But Halliburton is now urging the court to overturn a 25-year-old decision that sparked a tidal wave of securities-related, class-action lawsuits against publicly traded companies and has led to billions in settlements.
The court's 1988 decision in Basic v. Levinson says shareholders who claim they were defrauded by false statements in securities filings don't have to prove they actually relied on the statements. Rather, the court reasoned that any misrepresentation would be reflected in the current stock price. Even if investors are not aware of the misstatements, they are presumed to be aware of them because they affect the stock price.
This presumption, known as the "fraud-on-the-market theory," has become the driving force for modern class-action securities cases. But some economists have questioned whether this theory makes sense anymore, saying it doesn't account for the sometimes random and arbitrary nature of stock trading. |
|
|
|
|
|
| Lawyer & Law Firm Websites |
|
|
Legal News RSS Feed
