|
|
|
Appeals court upholds key voting rights provision
Court Watch |
2012/05/18 21:59
|
A federal appeals court on Friday upheld a key provision of the Voting Rights Act, rejecting an Alabama county's challenge to the landmark civil rights law.
The provision requires state, county and local governments with a history of discrimination to obtain advance approval from the Justice Department, or from a federal court in Washington, for any changes to election procedures. It now applies to all or parts of 16 states.
In a 2-1 decision, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit said that Congress developed extensive evidence of continuing racial discrimination just six years ago and reached a reasonable conclusion when it reauthorized section 5 of the law at that time.
The appellate ruling could clear the way for the case to be appealed to the Supreme Court where Chief Justice John Roberts suggested in a 2009 opinion that the court's conservative majority might be receptive to a challenge to section 5.
Judge David Tatel wrote for the Court of Appeals majority that the court owes deference to Congress' judgment on the matter.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Suit challenges federal licensing of tax preparers
Court Watch |
2012/03/12 11:50
|
After three decades as a part-time tax preparer, 80-year-old Elmer Kilian of Eagle, Wis., is concerned that new IRS regulations may prevent him from hanging out his shingle.
Kilian is one of three plaintiffs in a federal lawsuit by a libertarian legal center this week that challenges new licensure requirements for hundreds of thousands of tax preparers across the nation.
The IRS says the new regulations, more than two years in the making, are needed to ensure that taxpayers who hire tax preparers get high-quality service. The regulations require most paid tax preparers to pass a federal competency exam and take ongoing continuing education courses to keep up with changes in tax laws.
But the Arlington, Va.-based Institute for Justice, which expects to file the lawsuit Tuesday in Washington on behalf of Kilian and two others, say the IRS lacks the statutory authority to require these kinds of licenses without congressional authorization. The new rules are bad policy, the institute contends, that put mom-and-pop tax preparers out of business and give unfair advantages to lawyers and certified public accountants, who are exempt from many of the licensing requirements.
"The likely result of these regulations is less options for consumers and higher prices," said Bob Ewing, a spokesman for the institute. The nonprofit law firm has filed numerous legal challenges against government regulations, including local licensing requirements for professions from hair braiders to yoga teachers and federal rules against paying bone-marrow donors.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mo. court denies tax break for convenience stores
Court Watch |
2012/03/06 09:29
|
Missouri's highest court says convenience stores cannot claim a tax break on the electricity used to prepare food.
The Supreme Court's decision Tuesday hinged on whether the act of warming or cooking food qualified as "processing" a product. If so, then the electricity used for food preparation could qualify for a state sales tax exemption.
In a 5-2 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that food preparation was not "processing" and the tax break could not be claimed.
Casey's General Stores had sought the tax break for one month of electricity used at stores in Grain Valley and Greenwood.
The Missouri Department of Revenue said it did not have a specific figure for what might have been owed to Casey's, or to other companies that might have made similar claims.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Back Pay Award Reduced Based on Laches in Class Action
Court Watch |
2012/03/01 10:22
|
The Indiana Supreme Court recently decided what could prove to be a landmark decision on the doctrine of laches in Richmond State Hospital v. Brattain, Cause No. 49S02-1106-CV-327. If you are dealing with a case involving laches, this decision is a must read.
In this class action, employees who worked in "state institutions" claimed that the State had breached its contractual duty to provide equal pay for equal work by requiring that they work 40 hours per week for the same pay as employees in "state offices" who were only required to work 37.5 hours per week. The trial court found in favor of the employees and awarded 20 years of back pay, amounting to $42,422,788. The Court of Appeals reduced that award substantially by limiting back pay to a few months for merit employees but for non-merit employees, affirmed a recovery for 20 years of damages or about $18.7 million.
The Indiana Supreme Court granted transfer and then failed to reach a majority on numerous issues, dividing 2-2. Justice Sullivan did not participate, presumably because he served as State Budget Director during the period in dispute. As a result of the 2-2 split, the Supreme Court summarily affirmed the Court of Appeals on the merit employees' claims. As to the non-merit employees, the Supreme Court was able to reach a consensus, largely in favor of the State's laches defense.
http://www.indianalawupdate.com/entry/Back-Pay-Award-Reduced-Based-on-Laches-in-Class-Action |
|
|
|
|
|
Legal News RSS Feed
