Pa. court sides with towns in gas drilling fight

The highest court in Pennsylvania, heart of the country's natural gas drilling boom, on Thursday struck down significant portions of a law that limited the power of local governments to determine where the industry can operate _ rules the industry sought from Republican Gov. Tom Corbett and lawmakers.

In a 4-2 decision, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruled the industry-friendly rules set out by the 2012 law violated the state constitution, although the majority did not entirely agree on why they were unconstitutional.

Seven municipalities had challenged the law that grew out of the state's need to modernize 20-year-old drilling laws to account for a Marcellus Shale drilling boom made possible by innovations in technology, most notably horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing. The process, also called fracking, has drawn widespread criticism from environmentalists and many residents living near drilling operations.

"Few could seriously dispute how remarkable a revolution is worked by this legislation upon the existing zoning regimen in Pennsylvania, including residential zones," wrote Chief Justice Ron Castille. He said the law's rules represented an unprecedented "displacement of prior planning, and derivative expectations, regarding land use, zoning, and enjoyment of property."

The high court's decision comes at a time when the energy industry is increasingly able to capture oil and gas from previously unreachable formations and, as a result, is bumping up against suburban and urban expectations of land use in states including Texas, Colorado and Ohio, where a similar legal challenge is underway.

The 2012 law restricted local municipalities' ability to control where companies may place rigs, waste pits, pipelines and compressor and processing stations, although the new zoning rules never went into effect because of court order after the towns sued. A narrowly divided lower court struck them down in 2012, but Corbett appealed, saying lawmakers have clear authority to override local zoning.

Texas Supreme Court tackles same-sex divorce

The issues of same-sex marriage and divorce are set to go before the Texas Supreme Court.

The court is scheduled to hear arguments Tuesday on whether Texas can grant divorces to same-sex couples who married elsewhere.

Both cases involve same-sex couples who married legally in Massachusetts. Texas approved a constitutional ban on gay marriage in 2005.

Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott argues that state law won't allow Texas to recognize the divorces because that would validate the marriage. The couples question whether the same-sex marriage ban applies to divorce and whether it conflicts with the U.S. Constitution.

The U.S. Supreme Court in June struck down parts of the federal Defense of Marriage Act because it treats same-sex couples unequally.

The Texas court is not expected to rule for several months.

Court favors Abercrombie in Okla. suit over hijab

A federal appeals court has dismissed claims by an Oklahoma woman who says she wasn't hired by Abercrombie & Fitch because her headscarf conflicted with the retailer's dress code, which has since been changed.

A federal judge initially sided with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, which filed the lawsuit on behalf of Samantha Elauf. The EEOC alleged that Elauf wasn't hired in 2008 at an Abercrombie store in Tulsa's Woodland Hills Mall because her hijab violated the clothing retailer's "Look Policy."

The 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals reversed that decision Tuesday. The court said Elauf never told Abercrombie she needed a religious accommodation, even though she was wearing the headscarf during her interview.

The Ohio-based company changed its policy three years ago. It recently settled similar lawsuits in California.

Ind. high court to hear eminent domain lawsuit

The Indiana Supreme Court has agreed to hear an eminent domain case involving land in southern Indiana that a local board claimed for a planned airport runway expansion.

The state's high court recently vacated the Indiana Court of Appeals' ruling in the case involving the action by the now-defunct Clark County Board of Aviation Commissioners. That board used eminent domain in 2009 to acquire property owned by resident Margaret Dreyer for a runway expansion at the Clark County Regional Airport.

Dreyer sued the board, alleging its appraisals of the property acquired through eminent domain were wrong. She won and was awarded a judgment of $865,000.

The News and Tribune reported Clark County became party to the case last year when Dreyer's motion was granted to have the "civil government of Clark County" pay the judgment. The Court of Appeals later upheld the verdict.

South Central Regional Airport Authority Attorney Greg Fifer said last week in an email that the Indiana Supreme Court could either reach the same verdict as the appellate court, or affirm the county's position that the judgment was void.

Authority President Tom Galligan said the panel, which replaced the now-defunct Board of Aviation Commissioners, is pleased with the court's decision to hear the case. He said the airport authority thought the original ruling "was not a very good ruling."

Houston, Texas - Personal Injury Lawyers

Houston, Texas Personal Injury Law Firm, Padilla & Rodriguez, L.L.P has have over 35 years of combined attorney experience and are skilled legal representatives for families and individuals who have suffered from a personal injury due to someone else's carelessness and negligence. Our personal injury cases are based on a contingent fee and we will only charge for what we are able to recover for you. Our firm and its attorneys has had success in recoveries for some of the biggest corporations and businesses in the world ranging from railroads, pharmaceutical companies, to hospitals.

Appeals court allows capital retrial of Wolfe

A federal appeals court will allow a capital murder case to proceed against an accused drug kingpin from northern Virginia.
In a 2-1 ruling, the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond overturned a federal judge in Norfolk who had ordered a halt to the prosecution of Justin Wolfe and his immediate release.
That judge said misconduct by prosecutors in Prince William County made it impossible for Wolfe to get a fair trial.
But a majority on the appellate court disagreed. The judges ruled that a new trial can be done fairly. A dissenting judge said the misconduct was so bad that freeing Wolfe was the only proper outcome.
Wolfe was sent to death row in 2002 for a drug-related murder, but his original conviction and sentence were overturned.

High court poised to upend civil rights policies

Has the nation lived down its history of racism and should the law become colorblind?
Addressing two pivotal legal issues, one on affirmative action and a second on voting rights, a divided Supreme Court is poised to answer those questions.
In one case, the issue is whether race preferences in university admissions undermine equal opportunity more than they promote the benefits of racial diversity. Just this past week, justices signaled their interest in scrutinizing affirmative action very intensely, expanding their review as well to a Michigan law passed by voters that bars "preferential treatment" to students based on race. Separately in a second case, the court must decide whether race relations - in the South, particularly - have improved to the point that federal laws protecting minority voting rights are no longer warranted.
The questions are apt as the United States closes in on a demographic tipping point, when nonwhites will become a majority of the nation's population for the first time. That dramatic shift is expected to be reached within the next generation, and how the Supreme Court rules could go a long way in determining what civil rights and equality mean in an America long divided by race.
The court's five conservative justices seem ready to declare a new post-racial moment, pointing to increased levels of voter registration and turnout among blacks to show that the South has changed. Lower federal courts just in the past year had seen things differently, blunting voter ID laws and other election restrictions passed by GOP-controlled legislatures in South Carolina, Texas and Florida, which they saw as discriminatory.

Arnold Law Office, LLC - Criminal Defense

If you are facing Oregon state or municipal criminal charges, it is important to promptly retain competent criminal defense legal counsel.  A thorough review by an Oregon criminal defense attorney followed by an investigation can often make or break a case. The most candid remarks from potential witnesses come before the state has had multiple opportunities to interrogate and prepare witnesses. This is especially important in serious felony cases or Measure 11 and other mandatory minimum sentence cases.

When your liberty is in jeopardy due to a criminal case, it is important to invest in an Oregon criminal defense lawyer who will give your case the attention that it and you deserve.  You need to make an informed decision about the merits and hazards of a jury trial versus the advantages of plea negotiations. 

http://www.arnoldlawfirm.com/defense.html

Detroit mom in court in daughter's stabbing death

A 26-year-old Detroit mother of five was scheduled for her first court appearance Thursday afternoon on a murder charge in the stabbing death of her 8-year-old daughter.

Tameria Greene, who would have turned 9 on Wednesday, was found bleeding early Sunday on the floor of the family's apartment. Her mother, Semeria Greene, was arrested and her four sons were taken into protective custody.

Greene was due to be arraigned on felony murder and child abuse charges. She did not have an attorney listed in court records.

Michigan's human service director Maura Corrigan said family, friends and neighbors had complained to her agency about Greene's treatment of her five children. Corrigan said child welfare workers had tried repeatedly to remove them from Greene's care in the past two years.

Corrigan says a court denied the last request one month before Tameria's death.

Judge Frank Szymanski told The Associated Press on Thursday morning that he signed an order in November that ordered services but kept the children in the home. He said his order reflected the result of a hearing held by a referee and he had no active role in the case at that time. That's standard procedure in such cases, the judge said.