A Jordanian criminal court says it has postponed a verdict in the case of a powerful former intelligence chief on trial for alleged embezzlement of public funds, money laundering and abuse of office.
Presiding judge Nashaat Akhras told Mohammed al-Dahabi in court Sunday that his verdict will be pronounced Nov. 11, without giving a reason.
Al-Dahabi ran the General Intelligence Department between 2005 and 2008.
He faces up to 15 years in jail if convicted.
He was arrested in February, when inspectors from the Central Bank of Jordan suspected transactions worth millions of dollars had gone through his bank account.
The rare case against such a high profile official is meant to show Jordan's seriousness in efforts to tackle graft and corruption — a demand voiced in recent street protests.
Thursday, November 8, 2012
Wednesday, October 17, 2012
Experienced Pharmaceutical Litigation Attorneys
Pharamaceutical Drug Litigation often arises when drugs are not properly tested. Because the process of the FDA's trials and approval process is often rushed through, prescripton drugs may prose a problem for putting consumers at risk for harmful drugs. These drug approvals that were not done properly result in thousands of deaths each year in America and many others suffer from harmful reactions and debilitating side effects from insufficiently tested pharmaceutical drugs.
Driving a successful claim against the pharmaceutical giants demands an experienced and knowledgeable pharmaceutical drug lawyer.
A Reputation for Success
With over 20 years of experience, the attorneys of Price, Waicukauski & Riley truly understand the pharmaceutical industry, laws and litigation process. As a result, we can provide you with sound advice and quality representation.
Our attorneys have represented hundreds of plaintiffs in litigations throughout the country involving a wide variety of prescription and over-the-counter drugs. Our attorneys have served on plaintiff steering committees across the nation in several different prescription drug and medical device litigations. We have been involved in several groundbreaking pharmaceutical and prescription drug cases, including:
Darvocet and Darvon
Kugel Mesh Hernia Patch
LEVAQUIN® (Generic Name: Levofloxacin)
ORTHO EVRA®
With extensive experience representing clients in product-related class action litigation and mass tort litigation, we offer you proven knowledge, experience and resources to represent you against the largest pharmaceutical companies.
Contact Us for a Complimentary Consultation
For experienced pharmaceutical drug representation, contact the attorneys at Price Waicukauski & Riley, LLC, in Indianapolis, Indiana. We represent clients throughout Indiana and the United States. We provide a free initial consultation on all pharmaceutical drug claims. http://www.price-law.com/practice-areas/pharmaceutical-drug-litigation
Driving a successful claim against the pharmaceutical giants demands an experienced and knowledgeable pharmaceutical drug lawyer.
A Reputation for Success
With over 20 years of experience, the attorneys of Price, Waicukauski & Riley truly understand the pharmaceutical industry, laws and litigation process. As a result, we can provide you with sound advice and quality representation.
Our attorneys have represented hundreds of plaintiffs in litigations throughout the country involving a wide variety of prescription and over-the-counter drugs. Our attorneys have served on plaintiff steering committees across the nation in several different prescription drug and medical device litigations. We have been involved in several groundbreaking pharmaceutical and prescription drug cases, including:
Darvocet and Darvon
Kugel Mesh Hernia Patch
LEVAQUIN® (Generic Name: Levofloxacin)
ORTHO EVRA®
With extensive experience representing clients in product-related class action litigation and mass tort litigation, we offer you proven knowledge, experience and resources to represent you against the largest pharmaceutical companies.
Contact Us for a Complimentary Consultation
For experienced pharmaceutical drug representation, contact the attorneys at Price Waicukauski & Riley, LLC, in Indianapolis, Indiana. We represent clients throughout Indiana and the United States. We provide a free initial consultation on all pharmaceutical drug claims. http://www.price-law.com/practice-areas/pharmaceutical-drug-litigation
Monday, August 6, 2012
NJ court upholds decal law for young drivers
Young drivers in New Jersey will have to continue displaying a red decal on their license plates.
The state Supreme Court upheld "Kyleigh's Law" in a ruling Monday.
In a unanimous opinion, the high court ruled that requiring the decals doesn't violate federal privacy laws or laws against unreasonable search and seizure. An appeals court had ruled similarly last year in a challenge brought by two parents.
The law is named for a New Jersey teenager who was killed in a 2006 crash. It's meant to aid police in enforcing restricted privileges for young drivers.
Opponents say displaying the decals could leave teen drivers vulnerable to predators. But a report last year found only one reported incident in which an underage driver was stopped by someone impersonating a police officer.
The state Supreme Court upheld "Kyleigh's Law" in a ruling Monday.
In a unanimous opinion, the high court ruled that requiring the decals doesn't violate federal privacy laws or laws against unreasonable search and seizure. An appeals court had ruled similarly last year in a challenge brought by two parents.
The law is named for a New Jersey teenager who was killed in a 2006 crash. It's meant to aid police in enforcing restricted privileges for young drivers.
Opponents say displaying the decals could leave teen drivers vulnerable to predators. But a report last year found only one reported incident in which an underage driver was stopped by someone impersonating a police officer.
Thursday, June 14, 2012
Indianapolis Personal Injury Law Firm - Price Waicukauski & Riley, LLC
Personal injury accidents occur through the negligent action or inaction of another person or group. Personal injury encompasses a broad range of cases, from dangerous prescription drugs to car crashes. Any case in which one person is hurt by another person's or company’s negligent or wrongful action (or inaction) may be considered personal injury. Most personal injuries include physical, emotional, and financial hardships. If you or a family member has been the victim of personal injury, our Indianapolis personal injury lawyers and wrongful death attorneys can help you get the compensation you deserve.
Price Waicukauski & Riley Law is an Indiana based law firm acknowledged as one of the premier personal injury firms. Their attorneys are dedicated to litigating and negotiating complicated personal injury matters. Representing numerous people who have been injured or have dealt with wrong deaths, their experience gives them first rate quality. They believe in fighting for the compensation you deserve. Visit www.price-law.com to see more.
Price Waicukauski & Riley Law is an Indiana based law firm acknowledged as one of the premier personal injury firms. Their attorneys are dedicated to litigating and negotiating complicated personal injury matters. Representing numerous people who have been injured or have dealt with wrong deaths, their experience gives them first rate quality. They believe in fighting for the compensation you deserve. Visit www.price-law.com to see more.
Wednesday, June 13, 2012
Feds and Florida headed to court over voter purge
The administration of Florida Gov. Rick Scott is headed to a legal showdown with two different federal agencies over a contentious voter purge.
Florida filed a lawsuit in a federal court in Washington D.C., demanding that the state be given the right to check the names of its registered voters against an immigration database maintained by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security.
The lawsuit came the same day that the U.S. Department of Justice announced its plan to ask a federal court to block the state from pushing ahead with removing potential non-U.S. citizens from the voter rolls. Authorities contend that the state's effort violates federal voting laws.
"Please immediately cease this unlawful conduct," wrote Assistant Attorney General Thomas Perez to Florida Secretary of State Ken Detzner.
But Scott himself went on national television to defend the purge and the need to sue the federal government.
Florida filed a lawsuit in a federal court in Washington D.C., demanding that the state be given the right to check the names of its registered voters against an immigration database maintained by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security.
The lawsuit came the same day that the U.S. Department of Justice announced its plan to ask a federal court to block the state from pushing ahead with removing potential non-U.S. citizens from the voter rolls. Authorities contend that the state's effort violates federal voting laws.
"Please immediately cease this unlawful conduct," wrote Assistant Attorney General Thomas Perez to Florida Secretary of State Ken Detzner.
But Scott himself went on national television to defend the purge and the need to sue the federal government.
Sunday, May 13, 2012
Federal appeals court in Ore. takes up no-fly case
A federal appeals court in Oregon will hear arguments in a lawsuit filed by 15 men who say their rights were violated because they are on the U.S. government's no-fly list.
They are asking the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Portland to order their removal from the list or at least get an explanation why they were put on it.
The plaintiffs include the imam of a Portland mosque and a Marine veteran who is the son of a Palestinian immigrant. Others are outside the country and unable to return.
U.S. District Court Judge Anna Brown ruled last year that her court does not have jurisdiction over the Transportation Safety Administration, which administers the no-fly list. The appeals court will hear the case on Friday. sw
They are asking the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Portland to order their removal from the list or at least get an explanation why they were put on it.
The plaintiffs include the imam of a Portland mosque and a Marine veteran who is the son of a Palestinian immigrant. Others are outside the country and unable to return.
U.S. District Court Judge Anna Brown ruled last year that her court does not have jurisdiction over the Transportation Safety Administration, which administers the no-fly list. The appeals court will hear the case on Friday. sw
Sunday, April 8, 2012
GOP ad plays with audio from Supreme Court hearing
A website ad from the Republican National Committee edits audio from this week's Supreme Court hearing on the health care law to exaggerate Solicitor General Donald Verrilli's struggle to find the words to defend President Barack Obama's initiative.
The ad shows a photograph of the Supreme Court Building as it plays audio from Tuesday's arguments on the constitutionality of the mandate that all Americans have health care insurance. As Verrilli speaks, the ad flashes the words: "ObamaCare. It's a tough sell."
Verrilli did indeed interrupt his opening remarks to take a drink of water and he did stumble over his words at times in the first two minutes of his presentation, according to the audio released by the Supreme Court. However, the audio in the RNC ad combines and compresses those moments, which makes Verrilli sounds as though he interrupted his opening comments twice in a matter of seconds and stumbled over his words in quick succession.
The ad shows a photograph of the Supreme Court Building as it plays audio from Tuesday's arguments on the constitutionality of the mandate that all Americans have health care insurance. As Verrilli speaks, the ad flashes the words: "ObamaCare. It's a tough sell."
Verrilli did indeed interrupt his opening remarks to take a drink of water and he did stumble over his words at times in the first two minutes of his presentation, according to the audio released by the Supreme Court. However, the audio in the RNC ad combines and compresses those moments, which makes Verrilli sounds as though he interrupted his opening comments twice in a matter of seconds and stumbled over his words in quick succession.
Tuesday, March 13, 2012
High court to take new look at affirmative action
The Supreme Court will once again confront the issue of race in
university admissions in a case brought by a white student denied a spot
at the flagship campus of the University of Texas.
The court said Tuesday it will return to the issue of affirmative action in higher education for the first time since its 2003 decision endorsing the use of race as a factor in admissions. This time around, a more conservative court is being asked to outlaw the use of Texas' affirmative action plan and possibly to jettison the earlier ruling entirely.
A broad ruling in favor of the student, Abigail Fisher, could threaten affirmative action programs at many of the nation's public and private universities, said Vanderbilt University law professor Brian Fitzpatrick.
A federal appeals court upheld the Texas program at issue, saying it was allowed under the high court's decision in Grutter vs. Bollinger in 2003 that upheld racial considerations in university admissions at the University of Michigan law school.
The Texas case will be argued in the fall, probably in the final days of the presidential election campaign, and the changed makeup of the Supreme Court could foretell a different outcome. For one thing, Justice Samuel Alito appears more hostile to affirmative action than his predecessor, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor. For another, Justice Elena Kagan, who might be expected to vote with the court's liberal-leaning justices in support of it, is not taking part in the case.
The court said Tuesday it will return to the issue of affirmative action in higher education for the first time since its 2003 decision endorsing the use of race as a factor in admissions. This time around, a more conservative court is being asked to outlaw the use of Texas' affirmative action plan and possibly to jettison the earlier ruling entirely.
A broad ruling in favor of the student, Abigail Fisher, could threaten affirmative action programs at many of the nation's public and private universities, said Vanderbilt University law professor Brian Fitzpatrick.
A federal appeals court upheld the Texas program at issue, saying it was allowed under the high court's decision in Grutter vs. Bollinger in 2003 that upheld racial considerations in university admissions at the University of Michigan law school.
The Texas case will be argued in the fall, probably in the final days of the presidential election campaign, and the changed makeup of the Supreme Court could foretell a different outcome. For one thing, Justice Samuel Alito appears more hostile to affirmative action than his predecessor, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor. For another, Justice Elena Kagan, who might be expected to vote with the court's liberal-leaning justices in support of it, is not taking part in the case.
Law Firm Brower Piven Announces Investigation
The law firm of Brower Piven, A Professional Corporation, has commenced
an investigation into possible breaches of fiduciary duty to current
shareholders of CH Energy Group, Inc. and other violations of state law
by the board of directors of CH Energy Group relating to the proposed
acquisition of the company by Fortis Inc. The firm's investigation seeks
to determine, among other things, whether the board breached its
fiduciary duties by failing to maximize shareholder value.
On February 21, 2012, Fortis announced that it had entered into an agreement providing for Fortis to acquire CH Energy Group for $1.5 billion. Under the terms of the merger agreement, CH Energy Group shareholders will receive $65.00 for each share of CH Energy Group common stock held. However, according to Yahoo! Finance, at least one analyst has set a high price target of $69.00 per share.
If you currently own shares of CH Energy Group and would like to learn more about the investigation being conducted by Brower Piven, you may email or call Brower Piven, who will, without obligation or cost to you, attempt to answer your questions.
www.browerpiven.com
On February 21, 2012, Fortis announced that it had entered into an agreement providing for Fortis to acquire CH Energy Group for $1.5 billion. Under the terms of the merger agreement, CH Energy Group shareholders will receive $65.00 for each share of CH Energy Group common stock held. However, according to Yahoo! Finance, at least one analyst has set a high price target of $69.00 per share.
If you currently own shares of CH Energy Group and would like to learn more about the investigation being conducted by Brower Piven, you may email or call Brower Piven, who will, without obligation or cost to you, attempt to answer your questions.
www.browerpiven.com
Wednesday, February 29, 2012
NY court decision bolsters anti-fracking movement
A New York court decision has bolstered a movement among towns
determined to prevent the controversial practice of hydraulic fracturing
for natural gas within their borders.
A state Supreme Court justice on Tuesday upheld the town of Dryden's August 2011 zoning amendment banning gas drilling. Denver-based Anschutz Exploration Corporation, which has spent $5.1 million leasing and developing 22,000 acres in Dryden, about 40 miles southwest of Syracuse, had argued state law trumped the ban.
More than 50 New York communities have enacted gas-drilling bans. Binghamton attorney Helen Slottje, who helps draft such laws, says the ruling should embolden towns considering local bans.
"We think it's a terrific vindication of the town's right to home rule and to decide their future," Slottje said Wednesday. "It really should give the green light to communities that want to proceed down this route."
Albany attorney Tom West, who represented Anschutz, said the trial-level state court decision is likely to be appealed to the mid-level Appellate Division and, if necessary, to the state Court of Appeals.
"We remain confident in our position that municipalities cannot ban natural gas drilling in New York state," West said.
Another challenge of a municipal gas-drilling ban is pending in Otsego County, where Cooperstown Holstein Corp. sued the town of Middlefield over a ban similar to Dryden's. The lawsuit says the landowner has leased nearly 400 acres to a gas-drilling company and the ban would block the economic benefits of the arrangement.
A state Supreme Court justice on Tuesday upheld the town of Dryden's August 2011 zoning amendment banning gas drilling. Denver-based Anschutz Exploration Corporation, which has spent $5.1 million leasing and developing 22,000 acres in Dryden, about 40 miles southwest of Syracuse, had argued state law trumped the ban.
More than 50 New York communities have enacted gas-drilling bans. Binghamton attorney Helen Slottje, who helps draft such laws, says the ruling should embolden towns considering local bans.
"We think it's a terrific vindication of the town's right to home rule and to decide their future," Slottje said Wednesday. "It really should give the green light to communities that want to proceed down this route."
Albany attorney Tom West, who represented Anschutz, said the trial-level state court decision is likely to be appealed to the mid-level Appellate Division and, if necessary, to the state Court of Appeals.
"We remain confident in our position that municipalities cannot ban natural gas drilling in New York state," West said.
Another challenge of a municipal gas-drilling ban is pending in Otsego County, where Cooperstown Holstein Corp. sued the town of Middlefield over a ban similar to Dryden's. The lawsuit says the landowner has leased nearly 400 acres to a gas-drilling company and the ban would block the economic benefits of the arrangement.
Costner sculpture dispute heads to SD high court
The South Dakota Supreme Court will hear a case involving Hollywood
actor Kevin Costner and some bronze sculptures of bison and American
Indians.
Justices will review a judge's decision last summer that Costner did not breach a contract with South Dakota artist Peggy Detmers by placing the sculptures at his Tatanka attraction near Deadwood in 2006. Detmers challenged the ruling, and oral arguments are set for March 19 in Vermillion, the Rapid City Journal reported.
Costner filmed much of his Academy-Award-winning movie "Dances with Wolves" in South Dakota. He commissioned the sculptures in the early 1990s for his planned Dunbar resort in South Dakota's Black Hills that still has not been built.
Costner paid Detmers $300,000 for the 17 sculptures. Detmers said she spent more than six years creating the artwork and gave Costner a price break because she anticipated selling smaller sculptures at the resort.
Circuit Judge Randall Macy ruled last July that Detmers indicated her approval of the Tatanka location by participating in the development of the site, the placing of the sculptures there and the opening ceremony. The Tatanka site houses the sculptures and a visitor center.
Justices will review a judge's decision last summer that Costner did not breach a contract with South Dakota artist Peggy Detmers by placing the sculptures at his Tatanka attraction near Deadwood in 2006. Detmers challenged the ruling, and oral arguments are set for March 19 in Vermillion, the Rapid City Journal reported.
Costner filmed much of his Academy-Award-winning movie "Dances with Wolves" in South Dakota. He commissioned the sculptures in the early 1990s for his planned Dunbar resort in South Dakota's Black Hills that still has not been built.
Costner paid Detmers $300,000 for the 17 sculptures. Detmers said she spent more than six years creating the artwork and gave Costner a price break because she anticipated selling smaller sculptures at the resort.
Circuit Judge Randall Macy ruled last July that Detmers indicated her approval of the Tatanka location by participating in the development of the site, the placing of the sculptures there and the opening ceremony. The Tatanka site houses the sculptures and a visitor center.
The Rosen Law Firm Announces Class Action
The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. today announced that a class action lawsuit has
been filed on behalf of investors who purchased the common stock of
SAIC, Inc. during the period between April 11, 2007 and September 1,
2011, and is seeking to recover investors' damages from violations of
federal securities laws.
To join the SAIC class action, visit the Rosen Law Firm's website at http://www.rosenlegal.com, or call Phillip Kim, Esq. or Jon Horne, toll-free, at 866-767-3653; you may also email or pkim@rosenlegal.com or jhorne@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action.
NO CLASS HAS YET BEEN CERTIFIED IN THE ABOVE ACTION. UNTIL A CLASS IS CERTIFIED, YOU ARE NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL UNLESS YOU RETAIN ONE. YOU MAY CHOOSE TO DO NOTHING AT THIS POINT AND REMAIN AN ABSENT CLASS MEMBER.
The Complaint asserts violations of the federal securities laws against SAIC and its officers and directors for issuing false and misleading information to investors about the Company's true financial and business condition. Specifically, the Complaint alleges defendants misrepresented and/or failed to disclose that: (1) over a multi-year period, SAIC had overbilled New York City hundreds of millions of dollars on the CityTime project -- an initiative associated with the modernization of New York City's employee payroll system; (2) as a result of these overbilling practices, its operating results during the Class Period were materially misstated; (3) SAIC's overbilling practices subjected the Company to numerous undisclosed risks, including monetary risks and risks to the Company's reputation; (4) as a result of the foregoing, SAIC violated applicable accounting standards associated with the recognition of revenue and the disclosure and accounting for loss contingencies; and (5) the Company's financial statements were not fairly presented in conformity with generally accepted accounting principles and were materially false and misleading.
When the truth concerning SAIC's financial condition was disclosed publicly, its share price dropped, damaging investors.
If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than April 23, 2012. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. If you wish to join the litigation, or to discuss your rights or interests regarding this class action, please contact Phillip Kim, Esq. of The Rosen Law Firm, toll-free, at 866-767-3653, or via e-mail at pkim@rosenlegal.com. You may also visit the firm's website at http://www.rosenlegal.com.
The Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and shareholder derivative litigation.
www.rosenlegal.com
To join the SAIC class action, visit the Rosen Law Firm's website at http://www.rosenlegal.com, or call Phillip Kim, Esq. or Jon Horne, toll-free, at 866-767-3653; you may also email or pkim@rosenlegal.com or jhorne@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action.
NO CLASS HAS YET BEEN CERTIFIED IN THE ABOVE ACTION. UNTIL A CLASS IS CERTIFIED, YOU ARE NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL UNLESS YOU RETAIN ONE. YOU MAY CHOOSE TO DO NOTHING AT THIS POINT AND REMAIN AN ABSENT CLASS MEMBER.
The Complaint asserts violations of the federal securities laws against SAIC and its officers and directors for issuing false and misleading information to investors about the Company's true financial and business condition. Specifically, the Complaint alleges defendants misrepresented and/or failed to disclose that: (1) over a multi-year period, SAIC had overbilled New York City hundreds of millions of dollars on the CityTime project -- an initiative associated with the modernization of New York City's employee payroll system; (2) as a result of these overbilling practices, its operating results during the Class Period were materially misstated; (3) SAIC's overbilling practices subjected the Company to numerous undisclosed risks, including monetary risks and risks to the Company's reputation; (4) as a result of the foregoing, SAIC violated applicable accounting standards associated with the recognition of revenue and the disclosure and accounting for loss contingencies; and (5) the Company's financial statements were not fairly presented in conformity with generally accepted accounting principles and were materially false and misleading.
When the truth concerning SAIC's financial condition was disclosed publicly, its share price dropped, damaging investors.
If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than April 23, 2012. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. If you wish to join the litigation, or to discuss your rights or interests regarding this class action, please contact Phillip Kim, Esq. of The Rosen Law Firm, toll-free, at 866-767-3653, or via e-mail at pkim@rosenlegal.com. You may also visit the firm's website at http://www.rosenlegal.com.
The Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and shareholder derivative litigation.
www.rosenlegal.com
Court: California can force inmates to submit DNA
A divided federal appeals court ruled Thursday that California law
enforcement officials can keep collecting DNA samples from people
arrested for felonies.
The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said law enforcement’s interest in solving cold cases, identifying crime suspects and even exonerating the wrongly accused outweigh any privacy concerns raised by the forced DNA collections.
The 2-1 ruling came in response to a lawsuit filed by four Californians who were arrested on felony charges but never convicted.
The arrestees sought a court order barring collection of DNA from people who are arrested but not convicted, arguing the process is an unconstitutional search and seizure since some suspects will later be exonerated.
The DNA samples are obtained with a swab of the cheek and stored in the state’s DNA database, which contains 1.9 million profiles. Arrestees who are never charged with a felony can apply to have their samples expunged from the database.
The state Department of Justice said it has had roughly 20,000 “hits’’ connecting suspects with previous crimes since it began collecting the DNA profiles.
Judge Mylan Smith Jr., writing for the two-judge majority, said the useful law enforcement tool wasn’t any more intrusive than fingerprinting.
The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said law enforcement’s interest in solving cold cases, identifying crime suspects and even exonerating the wrongly accused outweigh any privacy concerns raised by the forced DNA collections.
The 2-1 ruling came in response to a lawsuit filed by four Californians who were arrested on felony charges but never convicted.
The arrestees sought a court order barring collection of DNA from people who are arrested but not convicted, arguing the process is an unconstitutional search and seizure since some suspects will later be exonerated.
The DNA samples are obtained with a swab of the cheek and stored in the state’s DNA database, which contains 1.9 million profiles. Arrestees who are never charged with a felony can apply to have their samples expunged from the database.
The state Department of Justice said it has had roughly 20,000 “hits’’ connecting suspects with previous crimes since it began collecting the DNA profiles.
Judge Mylan Smith Jr., writing for the two-judge majority, said the useful law enforcement tool wasn’t any more intrusive than fingerprinting.
Appeals court tosses Armenian payments law
A federal appeals court on Thursday struck down a novel and
controversial California law that allowed descendants of 1.5 million
Armenians who perished in Turkey nearly a century ago to file claims
against life insurance companies accused of reneging on policies.
The move came when a specially convened 11-judge panel of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals unanimously tossed out a class action lawsuit filed against Munich Re after two of its subsidiaries refused to pay claims.
The ruling, written by Judge Susan Graber, said the California law trampled on U.S. foreign policy — the exclusive jurisdiction of the federal government.
The California Legislature labeled the Armenian deaths as genocide, a term the Turkish government vehemently argued was wrongly applied during a time of civil unrest in the country.
The court noted the issue is so fraught with politics that President Obama studiously avoided using the word genocide during a commemorative speech in April 2010 noting the Armenian deaths.
The tortured legal saga began in 2000 when the California Legislature passed a law enabling Armenian heirs to file claims with insurance companies for policies sold around the turn of the 20th century. It gave the heirs until 2010 to file lawsuits over unpaid insurance benefits.
The move came when a specially convened 11-judge panel of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals unanimously tossed out a class action lawsuit filed against Munich Re after two of its subsidiaries refused to pay claims.
The ruling, written by Judge Susan Graber, said the California law trampled on U.S. foreign policy — the exclusive jurisdiction of the federal government.
The California Legislature labeled the Armenian deaths as genocide, a term the Turkish government vehemently argued was wrongly applied during a time of civil unrest in the country.
The court noted the issue is so fraught with politics that President Obama studiously avoided using the word genocide during a commemorative speech in April 2010 noting the Armenian deaths.
The tortured legal saga began in 2000 when the California Legislature passed a law enabling Armenian heirs to file claims with insurance companies for policies sold around the turn of the 20th century. It gave the heirs until 2010 to file lawsuits over unpaid insurance benefits.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)