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.
Monday, August 6, 2012
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)