|
|
|
Court rejects pay for woman sterilized at county's behest
Opinions |
2016/02/12 14:44
|
North Carolina doesn't have to compensate a woman involuntarily sterilized at the behest of a county social services worker because there's no evidence that the State Eugenics board was involved, an appeals court ruled Tuesday.
The North Carolina Court of Appeals upheld a state commission's determination that the woman was ineligible for payment under a state law to compensate people involuntarily sterilized as part of a state program that ran through the 1970s.
Court documents say the woman was coerced into having an abortion and a sterilization procedure in 1974 by a worker from the Cleveland County Department of Social Services who threatened to take her two daughters.
The woman's attorney argues that the county agency was functioning as an arm of the state's social services system, and that the county worker was acting under authority of state law regarding sterilizations.
Attorney Bobby Bollinger Jr. wrote in his appeal that the worker "was an agent of the State" and that his client's claim shouldn't be denied just because there is a no documentation proving involvement of the Eugenics Board.
However, the Appeals Court ruled that the lack of documentation means the woman can't prove that she meets requirements for compensation. A 2013 state law requires claimants to show they were sterilized under state authority.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Law Firm Website Templates - Legal Marketing Tips
Opinions |
2013/10/04 13:56
|
4 Myths about Template Website Design for Law Firms
Template websites are one of the most affordable and simple solutions for attorneys looking to get their legal business online. They are offered for a very low price and require a limited amount of input to get online. Still, template websites get a bad name. In this article, we’ll dispel several myths and make a case for why a template website is just as capable as any custom designed site.
MYTH: Templates Always Have Unprofessional Design
Firstly, we should establish the difference between a template website and a sitebuilder website. Sitebuilder websites can be incredibly cheap, and usually offer the benefit of do-it-yourself customizability. People who know what they want and have time to invest are drawn to these solutions.
However, these sitebuilders lack the knowledge and experience of a designer or web developer, and users often find their capabilities limited by the interface or a necessity for HTML/ CSS fluency. The most capable attorneys will end up with a website that undersells their professionalism and excellence. The least will have a website that offends the eyes and scares potential clients away.
Our template websites differ because they are based on our most successful custom designs. Unlike other template solutions, each template has been professionally designed by our in-house, highly experienced web designers, and is proven to be successful at impressing visitors and converting prospects into real business. They are also created specifically for lawyers and law firms, so each template is absolutely appropriate for legal professionals.
MYTH: Template Websites Aren’t SEO Optimized
We’ve heard a lot of arguments against template websites because they are not SEO optimized. Law Promo’s template websites are ALWAYS fitted with the very best of onsite optimization. While template websites are made to be static–best for those who have little interest in constant work and updates on their pages–they still are search engine optimized like any of our custom websites, and have the potential for search engine success. Page titles, heading tags, image tags, and keywords are all equally powerful as they would be on a custom website. And if you’re looking to keep your website fresh, you can always add a blog for constant, keyword-rich updated content.
MYTH: My Website Will Look Like Everyone Else’s
This is another concern we hear frequently: “Won’t there be other websites out there, just like mine?” Law Promo offers dozens of different website templates with several customizable options, so its unlikely that there will be many others like yours. Further, you only need to worry about what your potential visitors see. As long as your website isn’t the same as your immediate competitors, a template website is an affordable and easy solution for any law firm.
With the available choices and custom options, your website will be fit to your preferences, and your visitors will not be thinking about whether it’s a template website or not. Instead, they’ll get a great initial impression of your professionalism, then go on to learn more about you through your written content, where most legal professionals really shine.
MYTH: Template Websites Require Technical Knowledge and Web Savvy
We’ve heard horror stories about template design companies that hand their customers a completed template website and expect them to install and maintain it themselves. We understand that attorneys are busy individuals without the time to learn about server configuration or technical coding. That’s why we do all of the technical work for you– you make a few simple choices, send us your written content, and your website will be online and running in a little over a day.
Remember, template websites are not for everyone. If your firm is looking for a deeply personalized, high-functioning website designed to dominate the web space, you’ll be looking for more involved custom design and coding. However, for those who realize that the web is a necessary space for business but don’t have the time to invest in content creation, we highly recommend our template website solution designed specially for legal professionals.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clinton: Court should nix anti-gay marriage law
Opinions |
2013/03/02 15:08
|
Former President Bill Clinton is calling on the Supreme Court to overturn a law he signed that bars federal recognition of same-sex marriages.
Clinton says the Defense of Marriage Act is incompatible with the Constitution. He says he signed the law in 1996 to avoid legislation that would have been even worse for gays.
Clinton writes in a Washington Post op-ed that American society has changed. He says he now realizes the law discriminates against gays and provides an excuse for others to discriminate, too.
The Obama administration has stopped defending the law in court, and the Supreme Court is expected to take up a challenge to it later this month.
Separately, the high court is also considering whether California's gay marriage ban should stand. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Court rejects Verizon challenge to roaming rule
Opinions |
2012/12/04 09:22
|
A federal appeals court has rejected a Verizon challenge to a Federal Communications Commission rule aimed at increasing competition in wireless broadband service. The three-judge panel ruled Tuesday that the FCC had the legal authority to issue the "data roaming rule." The rule requires big wireless carriers to open their data networks to smaller regional operators in places where they don't have their own systems. The large carriers must offer network access at reasonable prices. Verizon has called the rule "unwarranted government intervention," and challenged it on several grounds — including that the FCC lacked the statutory authority to issue it. But appeals court judges Thomas Griffith, David S. Tatel and Merrick B. Garland disagreed. Griffith was appointed by President George W. Bush; the other two by President Bill Clinton. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Proof of a Negative Not Required for Summary Judgment
Opinions |
2012/02/28 10:03
|
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.
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. |
|
|
|
|
|
| Law Firm Web Design Information |
| Law Promo has worked with attorneys, lawyers and law firms all over the world in designing beautiful law firm websites that look great on all devices, from desktop computers to mobile phones. Law Promo can construct your law firm a brand new responsive law firm website, or help you redesign your existing site to secure your place in the mobile world. Solo Practice Law Firm Website Design |
|
|
Legal News RSS Feed
