|
|
|
W.Va. lawyer nominated to federal appeals court
Headline Legal News |
2011/09/09 08:54
|
President Barack Obama has nominated Hamlin native Stephanie Dawn Thacker as a judge on the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
Thacker has been a partner in the Charleston law firm of Guthrie amp; Thomas since 2006.
Before that she spent seven years with the U.S. Department of Justice. Her work as a trial attorney there focused on prosecution and training in connection with child pornography and sexual exploitation, sex trafficking, obscenity and other offenses.
She also served as an assistant federal prosecutor and worked for the state attorney general's office.
The U.S. Senate must now consider Thacker's nomination to the Richmond, Va.-based court. The seat became vacant after the March death of Judge Blane Michael.
The 15-member court covers North Carolina, South Carolina, Maryland, Virginia and West Virginia. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Court tosses Sivak's death sentence
Law News |
2011/09/09 00:37
|
The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has reversed the death sentence of an Idaho man convicted of brutally slaying a former coworker because the state allowed a jailhouse informant to lie on the witness stand.
Lacey Mark Sivak was sentenced to death for the 1981 murder of Dixie Wilson at the Baird Oil gas station in Garden City. In a ruling handed down Wednesday, the appellate court said that while Sivak's murder conviction was appropriate, the outcome of his sentencing hearing might have been different if prosecutors hadn't knowingly presented the testimony of an inmate who lied on the stand.
Still, the appellate court said state attorneys may decide to hold a new sentencing hearing if they still want to seek the death penalty for Sivak's crimes. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ex-Va attorney convicted in law firm embezzlement
Headline Legal News |
2011/09/07 08:55
|
A former attorney has been convicted of embezzling at least $450,000 from the law firm where she worked.
Henrico County Circuit Judge L.A. Harris Jr. on Friday found Kyle C. Leftwich guilty of eight counts of embezzlement in a scheme to divert funds from Marks amp; Harrison's accounts between 2004 and 2008. She could face up to 160 years in prison when she's sentenced in November.
Evidence showed that Leftwich endorsed Social Security checks made out to her for representing disabled clients. But she deposited the money elsewhere than into the firm's account and rigged firm ledgers to cover her actions.
Leftwich was fired in June 2010 and lost her law license a short time later. She repaid $450,000 to Marks amp; Harrison as part of a civil settlement. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Wal-Mart Uses Class Action Against Netflix
Law Firm News |
2011/09/07 00:36
|
Wal-Mart is using its failed class action lawsuit with Netflix to attract new users to its video streaming service, Vudu.
A federal court in California agreed late last week to allow Wal-Mart to pay $27.5 million to 40 million Netflix subscribers. The kicker? They can make the payment in the form of gift cards for Walmart.com. As a result, this also gives Wal-Mart access to Netflix's customer database.
The class action suit came in response to a dinner meeting in 2005, where the CEOs of Netflix and Wal-Mart allegedly agreed to share the DVD market. According to consumer advocates, under the pact, Wal-Mart agreed not to rent DVDs if Netflix promised not to sell them. Class action suits were filed against both companies in 2009, claiming that this agreement violated antitrust laws.
While Wal-Mart decided to settle the case, Netflix is still fighting the allegations, claiming the suit has no merit.
Wal-Mart's settlement, which still has to be finalized in February 2012, comes as the discount giant is in the process of aggressively promoting its Vudu service, which it acquired in February 2010. At the same time, Netflix is in dire need of an image cleanup, following several unfriendly consumer moves, including a recent price hike and the falling out of its Liberty Starz deal. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Calif. gay marriage ban faces next legal hurdle
Law News |
2011/09/06 08:55
|
California's same-sex marriage ban faces its next legal test Tuesday when the state's highest court attempts to shed light on whether the voter-approved measure's backers have legal authority to appeal the federal ruling that overturned Proposition 8.
The California Supreme Court is scheduled to hear an hour of arguments on that question, which could prove crucial to the future of the voter-approved ban. The federal appeals court that is considering the initiative's constitutionality wants the state court to weigh in on the matter before it issues its decision.
The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has expressed doubts about the ability of Proposition 8's sponsors to challenge the lower court ruling absent the involvement of California's governor or attorney general, both of whom refused to appeal a federal judge's August 2010 decision striking down the ban as a violation of gay Californians' civil rights.
The court punted the question to the California Supreme Court earlier this year, saying it was a matter of state law.
Lawyers for the coalition of religious and conservative groups that qualified Proposition 8 for the November 2008 ballot maintain they are legally eligible to represent the majority of California voters who approved the same-sex marriage ban. They argue that because California has such a vigorous citizen's initiative process, it would not make sense for elected officials to effectively veto measures by not defending them in court. |
|
|
|
|
|
Legal News RSS Feed
