A class action is a case brought against an entity whose actions have
damaged a group of people in a similar way. A class proponent who has
been injured may bring a class action on behalf of everyone who was
harmed, with class members joining later on.
Class action lawsuits help to achieve justice not just for the
individuals who bring such claims, but also for those who have suffered
similar losses caused by a defendant's wrongdoing. Class actions are an
important and valuable part of the legal system, providing for the fair
and efficient resolution of legitimate claims of numerous parties by
allowing the claims to be brought together into a single case against
the defendant that allegedly caused the harm.
Closer: The Salazar Law firm
knows and understand class action cases. Class actions claims are long
and exhausting but their attorneys are proficient and professional and
will support and guide their clients every step of the difficult
process. Their experience over the years have given them extensive
knowledge on class action matters. Their goal is to built strong
lawsuits designed to get compensation for clients impacted by
wrongdoings of businesses. Contact Salazar Law Firm for your free case
evaluation and visit http://www.hurtinhouston.com for more information.
Tuesday, March 13, 2012
EU court: Web sites need not check for IP breaches
A European Union court ruled Thursday that social networking sites
cannot be compelled to install general filters to prevent the illegal
trading of music and other copyrighted material.
The decision is a victory for operators of social networking sites in the EU, but a setback for those who seek to protect copyrighted material from being distributed without payment or permission.
It also comes as protests are growing in Europe against ACTA, the proposed international Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement, which is meant to protect intellectual property rights.
In Thursday's decision, the EU Court of Justice, which is based in Luxembourg, ruled that requiring general filters that would cover all the site's users would not sufficiently protect personal data or the freedom to receive and impart information.
SABAM, a Belgian company that represents authors, composers and music publishers, filed the lawsuit leading to Thursday's ruling. In it, the company objected to the practices of Netlog NV, a social networking site, saying users' profiles allowed protected works to be shared illegally.
Michael Gardner, head of the intellectual property practice at London law firm Wedlake Bell, called the ruling a further blow to copyright owners because it appears to rule out forcing operators of social network sites and Internet service providers — at their own expense — to impose blanket monitoring and filtering aimed at stopping infringements.
The decision is a victory for operators of social networking sites in the EU, but a setback for those who seek to protect copyrighted material from being distributed without payment or permission.
It also comes as protests are growing in Europe against ACTA, the proposed international Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement, which is meant to protect intellectual property rights.
In Thursday's decision, the EU Court of Justice, which is based in Luxembourg, ruled that requiring general filters that would cover all the site's users would not sufficiently protect personal data or the freedom to receive and impart information.
SABAM, a Belgian company that represents authors, composers and music publishers, filed the lawsuit leading to Thursday's ruling. In it, the company objected to the practices of Netlog NV, a social networking site, saying users' profiles allowed protected works to be shared illegally.
Michael Gardner, head of the intellectual property practice at London law firm Wedlake Bell, called the ruling a further blow to copyright owners because it appears to rule out forcing operators of social network sites and Internet service providers — at their own expense — to impose blanket monitoring and filtering aimed at stopping infringements.
Thursday, March 1, 2012
Ousted Ind. official sentenced in voter fraud case
Indiana's ousted top elections official was sentenced Thursday to a year
of home detention for six felony convictions that a judge refused to
reduce to lesser crimes — a ruling that, if upheld on appeal, will
likely cost him not only his office but also his law license and
livelihood.
Hamilton Superior Court Judge Steven Nation said the intentional disregard that Secretary of State Charlie White showed for the law outweighed portrayals of him as a loving father and husband. The judge refused to reduce the six felony convictions to misdemeanors that would have given the 42-year-old Republican a chance to hold onto his office.
"I believe he violated the trust of the people," Nation said.
White told the judge he would appeal the one year's detention on each of the six felonies, to be served concurrently, and Nation stayed the sentence pending that. The judge also fined White $1,000 and ordered him to serve 30 hours of community service.
But White, his wife, and his attorney said his legal problems have cost him much more than part of his freedom and his political and legal career. Defense attorney Carl Brizzi said White and his wife, Michelle, have stopped making mortgage payments on the condo that was at the heart of his legal troubles and likely will lose ownership of it. White said his assets have dwindled to whatever equity he might have in the home and small stock and bank accounts and a 5-year-old, beat-up Jaguar automobile.
Hamilton Superior Court Judge Steven Nation said the intentional disregard that Secretary of State Charlie White showed for the law outweighed portrayals of him as a loving father and husband. The judge refused to reduce the six felony convictions to misdemeanors that would have given the 42-year-old Republican a chance to hold onto his office.
"I believe he violated the trust of the people," Nation said.
White told the judge he would appeal the one year's detention on each of the six felonies, to be served concurrently, and Nation stayed the sentence pending that. The judge also fined White $1,000 and ordered him to serve 30 hours of community service.
But White, his wife, and his attorney said his legal problems have cost him much more than part of his freedom and his political and legal career. Defense attorney Carl Brizzi said White and his wife, Michelle, have stopped making mortgage payments on the condo that was at the heart of his legal troubles and likely will lose ownership of it. White said his assets have dwindled to whatever equity he might have in the home and small stock and bank accounts and a 5-year-old, beat-up Jaguar automobile.
Federal Law Entitles You to an Accurate Credit Report
The Fair Credit Reporting Act (the FCRA), a federal statute passed in
1970 to regulate the collection and use of consumer credit information,
requires consumer reporting agencies (also known as credit reporting
agencies or credit bureaus) to maintain the “maximum possible accuracy”
of the credit information they collect and use to create consumer
reports (also known as credit reports). When a consumer reporting
agency fails to maintain this level of accuracy and errors occur, this
federal law gives consumers the right to dispute information in their
credit files and, when necessary, bring suit against those agencies and
the furnishers of credit information to those agencies, to recover
damages for those inaccuracies and errors.
Riley Bennett & Egloff Law combines experience and efficiency in credit reporting law to render their clients high quality legal representation. Their attorneys represents cosumers whose rights have been violated by the credit reporting agencies and runishers of credit information. Having represented a number of parties involved with these kinds of claims in federal court, their work has been acknowledged throughout the Indianapolis area. See www.rbelaw.com.
Riley Bennett & Egloff Law combines experience and efficiency in credit reporting law to render their clients high quality legal representation. Their attorneys represents cosumers whose rights have been violated by the credit reporting agencies and runishers of credit information. Having represented a number of parties involved with these kinds of claims in federal court, their work has been acknowledged throughout the Indianapolis area. See www.rbelaw.com.
Houston Motorcycle Accident Law Firm
Motorcycle accidents happen for a variety of reasons, but statistics
consistently show that they are now happening with alarming regularity.
Approximately 25,000 people are injured and over 1,000 killed every
year as a result of motorcycle accidents. A motorcycle accident can
cause catastrophic injuries, leaving the victim partially or completely
paralyzed. Motorcycle accidents that result in a wrongful death often
leave the victim's family to deal with the sudden and unexpected loss.
The most common causes are: driver error, reckless driving by another,
dangerous road conditions, mechanical failure, and faulty motorcycle
design.
The Salazar Law Firm is committed to providing clients involved in motorcycle accidents with the aggressive advocacy and knowledgeable support they need to get back on their feet. Their team of attorney aim to help the victims obtain a reasonably fair compensation for their losses and suffering. They are there for every step of the way, starting with the investigation site. See http://www.hurtinhouston.com for more information.
The Salazar Law Firm is committed to providing clients involved in motorcycle accidents with the aggressive advocacy and knowledgeable support they need to get back on their feet. Their team of attorney aim to help the victims obtain a reasonably fair compensation for their losses and suffering. They are there for every step of the way, starting with the investigation site. See http://www.hurtinhouston.com for more information.
Eugene and Portland Criminal Defense - Coit & Associates, P.C.
Coit & Associates, P.C.,
with offices in Eugene and Portland, have criminal defense lawyers
acknowledged for providing the highest quality representation in the
greater Eugene and Portland metropolitan locations. No matter the size
or seriousness of your case, a lawyer at Coit & Associates, P.C.
will aggressively tackle the case and understand its importance to you
and your family.
Our attorneys at Coit & Associates, P.C. not only have the experience to represent you but we will not b ack down from anyway. Our goal is to provide our clients with efficient, aggressive, and affordable criminal defense that is effective. We care for our defendents charged with or suspected of committing crimes and will fight for you.
Call us at (541) 685-1288 to schedule an appointment or visit us on http://www.criminaldefenseoregon.com for more information.
Our attorneys at Coit & Associates, P.C. not only have the experience to represent you but we will not b ack down from anyway. Our goal is to provide our clients with efficient, aggressive, and affordable criminal defense that is effective. We care for our defendents charged with or suspected of committing crimes and will fight for you.
Call us at (541) 685-1288 to schedule an appointment or visit us on http://www.criminaldefenseoregon.com for more information.
Proof of a Negative Not Required for Summary Judgment
The Indiana Court of Appeals has issued a decision that may have a large
impact on summary judgment practice in Indiana. In Commr. of the
Indiana Dept. of Ins. v. Black, ___ N.E.2d ___ (Ind. Ct. App. 2012), the
Court essentially held that Indiana will apply the standard set forth
in Celotex v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (1986), at least in some
circumstances.
more..
less..
Tim Black alleged that Dr. Harris and others rendered negligent care to his wife after she complained of chest pain. The negligence allegedly resulted in severe cardiac arrest and resulted in the need for a heart transplant. The medical review panel unanimously concluded that Dr. Harris failed to comply with the applicable standard of care.
After the panel decision, Black filed a petition seeking payment of $1 million from the Patient's Compensation Fund and asserted that he had settled with Dr. Harris for $250,000, thereby satisfying the qualifying amount to get to the fund. The Commissioner sought discovery of the settlement agreement but Black refused to produce it, saying it was confidential. Black did produce a copy of an unauthenticated check in the amount $250,000 from the Medical Assurance Co., made payable to Black and his counsel. Black also produced some correspondence between counsel that discussed a prospective settlement.
The Commissioner moved to dismiss the petition claiming that he needed the settlement agreement in order to make payment. It was not clear from the check whether the payment was for settlement with Dr. Harris or other defendants. The trial court denied the motion to dismiss and after conducting a hearing on damages, ordered the Commissioner to pay Black $1 million. The Commissioner appealed.
In considering the motion to dismiss, the Court of Appeals observed that matters outside the pleadings were submitted in support of the motion to dismiss and were relied on by the trial court. In light of this fact, the Court of Appeals, pursuant to T.R. 12(B), treated the motion as one for summary judgment. In a footnote, the court recognized that T.R. 12(B) requires that "all parties shall be given reasonable opportunity to present all material made pertinent to such motion by Rule 56." Although no such "opportunity" was given, the court found there was "no prejudice" and proceeded to consider the appeal as a summary judgment case.
The court noted that the Commissioner's position on the motion required him to prove a negative—-that there was no settlement with Harris for $250,000. In Jarboe v. Landmark Cmty. Newspapers of Indiana, Inc., 644 N.E.2d 118 (Ind. 1994), the Indiana Supreme Court rejected the view that a party seeking summary judgment could simply point to the opponent’s burden of proof at trial and prevail unless the non-movant produced evidence supporting its claim or defense. This ruling has for many years been perceived as being at odds with Celotex, in which the U.S. Supreme Court reached a different conclusion under the federal rules. In 2000, Justice Boehm, in dissenting from a denial of transfer in Lenhart Tool & Die, Inc. v. Lumpe, 722 N.E.2d 824 (Ind. 2000), expressed the view that a party who puts forward evidence that a non-movant will be unable to present evidence to prove an essential element of its claim or defense, should be entitled to summary judgment if the non-movant fails to present such evidence. In Black, the Court of Appeals held: "Today, we accept Justice Boehm's views on this subject expressed in his dissent."
Having adopted this new standard, however, the Court of Appeals found that in this case, based on the unauthenticated check and the settlement correspondence, there was a genuine issue of fact as to whether a $250,000 settlement on Black’s claim against Harris had been accomplished. So, the Commissioner was not entitled to summary judgment. Black was also not entitled to a judgment on his claim since it was not clear that the required settlement with Harris for $250,000 had been consummated.
The Court held that the Commissioner is entitled to discovery of the settlement agreement and that the confidentiality term in the settlement agreement would not trump the Commissioner's right to such discovery. The case was reversed and remanded for further proceedings.
http://www.indianalawupdate.com/entry/Proof-of-a-Negative-Not-Required-for-Summary-Judgment
more..
less..
Tim Black alleged that Dr. Harris and others rendered negligent care to his wife after she complained of chest pain. The negligence allegedly resulted in severe cardiac arrest and resulted in the need for a heart transplant. The medical review panel unanimously concluded that Dr. Harris failed to comply with the applicable standard of care.
After the panel decision, Black filed a petition seeking payment of $1 million from the Patient's Compensation Fund and asserted that he had settled with Dr. Harris for $250,000, thereby satisfying the qualifying amount to get to the fund. The Commissioner sought discovery of the settlement agreement but Black refused to produce it, saying it was confidential. Black did produce a copy of an unauthenticated check in the amount $250,000 from the Medical Assurance Co., made payable to Black and his counsel. Black also produced some correspondence between counsel that discussed a prospective settlement.
The Commissioner moved to dismiss the petition claiming that he needed the settlement agreement in order to make payment. It was not clear from the check whether the payment was for settlement with Dr. Harris or other defendants. The trial court denied the motion to dismiss and after conducting a hearing on damages, ordered the Commissioner to pay Black $1 million. The Commissioner appealed.
In considering the motion to dismiss, the Court of Appeals observed that matters outside the pleadings were submitted in support of the motion to dismiss and were relied on by the trial court. In light of this fact, the Court of Appeals, pursuant to T.R. 12(B), treated the motion as one for summary judgment. In a footnote, the court recognized that T.R. 12(B) requires that "all parties shall be given reasonable opportunity to present all material made pertinent to such motion by Rule 56." Although no such "opportunity" was given, the court found there was "no prejudice" and proceeded to consider the appeal as a summary judgment case.
The court noted that the Commissioner's position on the motion required him to prove a negative—-that there was no settlement with Harris for $250,000. In Jarboe v. Landmark Cmty. Newspapers of Indiana, Inc., 644 N.E.2d 118 (Ind. 1994), the Indiana Supreme Court rejected the view that a party seeking summary judgment could simply point to the opponent’s burden of proof at trial and prevail unless the non-movant produced evidence supporting its claim or defense. This ruling has for many years been perceived as being at odds with Celotex, in which the U.S. Supreme Court reached a different conclusion under the federal rules. In 2000, Justice Boehm, in dissenting from a denial of transfer in Lenhart Tool & Die, Inc. v. Lumpe, 722 N.E.2d 824 (Ind. 2000), expressed the view that a party who puts forward evidence that a non-movant will be unable to present evidence to prove an essential element of its claim or defense, should be entitled to summary judgment if the non-movant fails to present such evidence. In Black, the Court of Appeals held: "Today, we accept Justice Boehm's views on this subject expressed in his dissent."
Having adopted this new standard, however, the Court of Appeals found that in this case, based on the unauthenticated check and the settlement correspondence, there was a genuine issue of fact as to whether a $250,000 settlement on Black’s claim against Harris had been accomplished. So, the Commissioner was not entitled to summary judgment. Black was also not entitled to a judgment on his claim since it was not clear that the required settlement with Harris for $250,000 had been consummated.
The Court held that the Commissioner is entitled to discovery of the settlement agreement and that the confidentiality term in the settlement agreement would not trump the Commissioner's right to such discovery. The case was reversed and remanded for further proceedings.
http://www.indianalawupdate.com/entry/Proof-of-a-Negative-Not-Required-for-Summary-Judgment
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)