JACKSONVILLE, Fla. (AP) — Professional golfer John Daly has been ordered to pay almost $272,000 in legal fees for his unsuccessful libel lawsuit against The Florida Times-Union.
Duval County Circuit Judge Hugh Carithers ordered Daly to pay $263,088 in attorney's fees, plus costs of $8,675.99 and 8 percent interest rate per year until it is paid.
Carithers dismissed the lawsuit in March. He ruled that former columnist Mike Freeman's statements in a 2005 column were either true or constitutionally protected opinion.
Calls to Daly's attorney, Lydia A. Jones, and Daly's agent, Bud Martin, and Times-Union publisher Lucy Talley were not immediately returned.
Copyright © 2009 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.
Friday, June 26, 2009
Friday, June 19, 2009
State court again strikes down Philly gun law
City wants to bar assault weapons, 'straw purchases.' NRA challenged the measures.
By Patrick Walters | OF THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
June 19, 2009
-- A state appeals court ruled Wednesday that the city cannot enforce an assault weapons ban and a law prohibiting guns bought by one person and given to another, measures passed by City Council in an effort to combat persistent gun violence.
The 6-1 ruling marked the latest setback for Philadelphia officials, who have fought for years for the right to pass their own gun legislation. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has previously upheld the state's exclusive right to enact gun laws.
The National Rifle Association challenged a series of measures that were passed by City Council in April 2008 and signed by Mayor Michael Nutter. Both sides expect the case to end up before the state's highest court again.
''The bottom line is, we won,'' NRA attorney C. Scott Shields said of the ruling. ''Now, the Supreme Court is going to have to weigh in on it.''
In Thursday's ruling, the Commonwealth Court said the city could not ban assault weapons or pass the law prohibiting straw purchases, in which one person fills out forms and buys a gun for someone else -- often convicted felons who can't legally own guns.
In a dissenting opinion, Commonwealth Judge Doris A. Smith-Ribner asserted the city does have the right to pass its own gun laws, citing the hundreds of residents killed by gun violence every year.
The whole court also ruled that the NRA lacked standing in challenges to three other measures, saying the plaintiffs failed to show that they suffered ''injury.''
Those three laws require gun owners to report lost or stolen guns within 48 hours; allow police to confiscate guns from people who are considered a danger; and prohibit anyone subject to a protection-from-abuse order from possessing a gun. Only the lost-or-stolen gun ordinance is currently being enforced.
Shields said those laws had already been invalidated by a ruling in a separate lawsuit. But Richard Feder, an attorney for the city, said he disagreed with that assessment; he said the city had not yet had a chance to defend those laws in court.
''The Supreme Court will sort this all out, eventually,'' Feder said.
In September, the Commonwealth Court threw out a separate lawsuit about Philadelphia's ability to pass its own gun laws. That suit, filed by two City Council members, sought to have a court declare that the city could pass its own firearms laws.
A 1974 state law says that only the General Assembly can regulate gun.
''The bottom line is, we won. Now, the Supreme Court is going to have to weigh in on it.''
--C. Scott Shields, NRA attorney
By Patrick Walters | OF THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
June 19, 2009
-- A state appeals court ruled Wednesday that the city cannot enforce an assault weapons ban and a law prohibiting guns bought by one person and given to another, measures passed by City Council in an effort to combat persistent gun violence.
The 6-1 ruling marked the latest setback for Philadelphia officials, who have fought for years for the right to pass their own gun legislation. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has previously upheld the state's exclusive right to enact gun laws.
The National Rifle Association challenged a series of measures that were passed by City Council in April 2008 and signed by Mayor Michael Nutter. Both sides expect the case to end up before the state's highest court again.
''The bottom line is, we won,'' NRA attorney C. Scott Shields said of the ruling. ''Now, the Supreme Court is going to have to weigh in on it.''
In Thursday's ruling, the Commonwealth Court said the city could not ban assault weapons or pass the law prohibiting straw purchases, in which one person fills out forms and buys a gun for someone else -- often convicted felons who can't legally own guns.
In a dissenting opinion, Commonwealth Judge Doris A. Smith-Ribner asserted the city does have the right to pass its own gun laws, citing the hundreds of residents killed by gun violence every year.
The whole court also ruled that the NRA lacked standing in challenges to three other measures, saying the plaintiffs failed to show that they suffered ''injury.''
Those three laws require gun owners to report lost or stolen guns within 48 hours; allow police to confiscate guns from people who are considered a danger; and prohibit anyone subject to a protection-from-abuse order from possessing a gun. Only the lost-or-stolen gun ordinance is currently being enforced.
Shields said those laws had already been invalidated by a ruling in a separate lawsuit. But Richard Feder, an attorney for the city, said he disagreed with that assessment; he said the city had not yet had a chance to defend those laws in court.
''The Supreme Court will sort this all out, eventually,'' Feder said.
In September, the Commonwealth Court threw out a separate lawsuit about Philadelphia's ability to pass its own gun laws. That suit, filed by two City Council members, sought to have a court declare that the city could pass its own firearms laws.
A 1974 state law says that only the General Assembly can regulate gun.
''The bottom line is, we won. Now, the Supreme Court is going to have to weigh in on it.''
--C. Scott Shields, NRA attorney
Friday, June 12, 2009
The following is a reprint from "THE NATIONAL LAW JOURNAL" CLAIMANT SNEEZES WAY TO WORKERS' COMP BENEFITS
CLAIMANT SNEEZES WAY TO WORKERS' COMP BENEFITS
(Injury Happened While Holding Back Sneeze During Meeting)
By Danielle N. Rodier
An employee was engaged in furthering his employer's business interests when he tried to hold back a sneeze during a business meeting, tearing his retina, the Commonwealth Court has ruled.
Giving a broad interpretation to what kind of injury can get an employee workers' compensation benefits, the three-judge panel in Carroll v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board said because claimant Russell Carroll was on his employer's premises doing his job when he was injuries, he could be compensated for losing vision in his left eye when his retina tore.
This incident that led to Carroll's loss of vision occurred on July 10, 1995. On that day, Carroll, director of administrative computer center for the University of Pennsylvania was attending a meeting with his boss, Carl Abrahamson, and five other directors, Commonwealth Court Judge Jess Jiuliante said in the court opinion.
About half an hour through the meeting, Carroll, who was sitting at a table with five or six other people, felt a sneeze coming on. Not wanting to spread germs, Carroll tried unsuccessfully to hold the sneeze back. Jiuliante said that "after the sneeze took place, [Carroll] felt pressure in his head and within 30 seconds to a minute, felt a pain like a rubber band had struck his left eye."
The next morning at work, Carroll covered his right eye to look at someone but could only see that person from the waist down.
Everything in the upper portion was black. Carroll told Abrahamson about the injury and then sought medical attention.
Carroll filed a claim petition for specific loss benefits for the loss of his left eye as a result of a work injury in January 1996. The injury was described as a detached left retina. Penn Filed an answer stating that the injury was not work-related.
A workers' compensation judge heard evidence from Carroll's treating physician, Dr. Michael Maizel, who testified that he observed nothing wrong with Carroll's eyes during an exam three days prior to the incident. The day after the meeting, Maizel said, Carroll had two retinal tears in the interior portion of his left eye.
Another doctor testified on Carroll's behalf that his visual acuity for his left eye had been only at light-perception level and that the condition was a direct result of the sneeze suppression.
The WCJ granted Carroll's petition, awarding him 275 weeks of specific loss benefits for the loss of his left eye.
However, the Workers' Compensation Appeal Board reversed, finding that although Carroll was on Penn's premises when the accident occurred, there was no evidence that the suppression of the sneeze was caused by a condition of those premises.
On appeal, the Commonwealth Court found that the WCAB made a mistake in its ruling.
The WCAB cited the Superior Court's 1995 decision Gertz v. Temple University and Section 301(c)(1) of the Workers' Compensation Act in ruling that a compensable injury occurs when an employee is on employer's premises, is required to be there by the nature of his or her employment and sustains an injury caused by the premises.
Jiuliante said the relevant factor in the Gertz court's decision was that the claimant was not in the furtherance of her employer's business when she was injured. But the Commonwealth Court believed Carroll was furthering Penn's business interests when he sustained his injury.
Part of Carroll's job was to attend meetings regarding the installation of computer hardware and software. It was at such a meeting that he suppressed the sneeze.
Jiuliante then looked to the way previous Commonwealth Court and Supreme Court decisions have defined the term "injury" in the workers' compensation context.
The high court said in Kohler v. McCrory Stores that an injury is considered work-related when it occurs on the employer's premises. And in City of New Castle v. WCAB (Salie), the Commonwealth Court recognized that an employee may be doing something other than assigned work and yet the continuity of employment is not broken unless he or she is doing something completely foreign to the job.
In that case, an employer contracted fatal meningitis by kissing a coworker on the cheek before she left on maternity leave. The court decided that the decedent's good-bye kiss "was neither foreign to his employment not did it constitute an abandonment thereof."
Carroll's sneeze suppression was a comparable situation, Jiuliante said.
"This court believes that the circumstances in the case at bar clearly, it not unquestionably, indicate that [Carroll] was in the furtherance of [Penn's] affairs at the time of the injury. [Carroll] was involved in a meeting with his boss and his peers at the time of the injury," Jiuliante wrote.
"His attempt to suppress a sneeze during that meeting in order to avoid spreading germs to his CO-employees cannot be considered either an action foreign to his employment or an action in abandonment thereof. As a result, this court concludes that [Carroll's] injury occurred while he was in the course of his employment."
(Injury Happened While Holding Back Sneeze During Meeting)
By Danielle N. Rodier
An employee was engaged in furthering his employer's business interests when he tried to hold back a sneeze during a business meeting, tearing his retina, the Commonwealth Court has ruled.
Giving a broad interpretation to what kind of injury can get an employee workers' compensation benefits, the three-judge panel in Carroll v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board said because claimant Russell Carroll was on his employer's premises doing his job when he was injuries, he could be compensated for losing vision in his left eye when his retina tore.
This incident that led to Carroll's loss of vision occurred on July 10, 1995. On that day, Carroll, director of administrative computer center for the University of Pennsylvania was attending a meeting with his boss, Carl Abrahamson, and five other directors, Commonwealth Court Judge Jess Jiuliante said in the court opinion.
About half an hour through the meeting, Carroll, who was sitting at a table with five or six other people, felt a sneeze coming on. Not wanting to spread germs, Carroll tried unsuccessfully to hold the sneeze back. Jiuliante said that "after the sneeze took place, [Carroll] felt pressure in his head and within 30 seconds to a minute, felt a pain like a rubber band had struck his left eye."
The next morning at work, Carroll covered his right eye to look at someone but could only see that person from the waist down.
Everything in the upper portion was black. Carroll told Abrahamson about the injury and then sought medical attention.
Carroll filed a claim petition for specific loss benefits for the loss of his left eye as a result of a work injury in January 1996. The injury was described as a detached left retina. Penn Filed an answer stating that the injury was not work-related.
A workers' compensation judge heard evidence from Carroll's treating physician, Dr. Michael Maizel, who testified that he observed nothing wrong with Carroll's eyes during an exam three days prior to the incident. The day after the meeting, Maizel said, Carroll had two retinal tears in the interior portion of his left eye.
Another doctor testified on Carroll's behalf that his visual acuity for his left eye had been only at light-perception level and that the condition was a direct result of the sneeze suppression.
The WCJ granted Carroll's petition, awarding him 275 weeks of specific loss benefits for the loss of his left eye.
However, the Workers' Compensation Appeal Board reversed, finding that although Carroll was on Penn's premises when the accident occurred, there was no evidence that the suppression of the sneeze was caused by a condition of those premises.
On appeal, the Commonwealth Court found that the WCAB made a mistake in its ruling.
The WCAB cited the Superior Court's 1995 decision Gertz v. Temple University and Section 301(c)(1) of the Workers' Compensation Act in ruling that a compensable injury occurs when an employee is on employer's premises, is required to be there by the nature of his or her employment and sustains an injury caused by the premises.
Jiuliante said the relevant factor in the Gertz court's decision was that the claimant was not in the furtherance of her employer's business when she was injured. But the Commonwealth Court believed Carroll was furthering Penn's business interests when he sustained his injury.
Part of Carroll's job was to attend meetings regarding the installation of computer hardware and software. It was at such a meeting that he suppressed the sneeze.
Jiuliante then looked to the way previous Commonwealth Court and Supreme Court decisions have defined the term "injury" in the workers' compensation context.
The high court said in Kohler v. McCrory Stores that an injury is considered work-related when it occurs on the employer's premises. And in City of New Castle v. WCAB (Salie), the Commonwealth Court recognized that an employee may be doing something other than assigned work and yet the continuity of employment is not broken unless he or she is doing something completely foreign to the job.
In that case, an employer contracted fatal meningitis by kissing a coworker on the cheek before she left on maternity leave. The court decided that the decedent's good-bye kiss "was neither foreign to his employment not did it constitute an abandonment thereof."
Carroll's sneeze suppression was a comparable situation, Jiuliante said.
"This court believes that the circumstances in the case at bar clearly, it not unquestionably, indicate that [Carroll] was in the furtherance of [Penn's] affairs at the time of the injury. [Carroll] was involved in a meeting with his boss and his peers at the time of the injury," Jiuliante wrote.
"His attempt to suppress a sneeze during that meeting in order to avoid spreading germs to his CO-employees cannot be considered either an action foreign to his employment or an action in abandonment thereof. As a result, this court concludes that [Carroll's] injury occurred while he was in the course of his employment."
Friday, June 5, 2009
Ticket markups capped as NY scalping law expires
ALBANY, N.Y. (AP) — Want to score a ticket to the sold-out Beyonce concert at Madison Square Garden this month? It'll cost you only two extra bucks — for now.
Thanks to a missed deadline in Albany, reselling tickets to concerts, sports events and other attractions at large markups is now illegal because state lawmakers haven't agreed to extend a ticket resale law that expired Monday.
The law had allowed unlimited markups on tickets since 2007. Proposed by former Gov. Eliot Spitzer, the aim was to let the free market rule. But some distributors have charged dramatically more than the original price for the hottest tickets.
For now, the previous law rules. Among its stricter provisions: Markups are capped at $2 over the face value of a ticket.
Lawmakers and Gov. David Paterson are negotiating now.
"For better or worse, ticket scalping is illegal again, thank goodness," said Assemblyman Richard Brodsky, a Westchester Democrat who had to sought to limit resale prices at no more than 25 percent of the face value.
In the bill that Paterson and legislative leaders are negotiating, that cap is gone and an agreement could make unrestricted markups retroactive to Monday. But the leaders are trying to end a price-inflating practice in which ticket sellers redirect customers to companies and Web sites that they own — but that resell tickets at big markups.
The bill describes the practice as "wholesale off-loading of tickets ... without any chance for the public to purchase tickets at first sale." The bill passed by the Legislature would also require the venue operator or promoter to determine and disclose if the ticket is for a seat that may have an obstructed view.
"This is an opportunity for the governor to stand up for fans across New York," said Russ Haven of the New York Public Interest Research Group. "He can make sure they can afford seats for events at arenas like Yankee Stadium and Citi Field that New York taxpayers paid to build."
He was referring to government-backed finances and tax breaks granted for the development of the new homes for the Yankees and Mets.
This year, ticket distributor Ticketmaster was criticized for redirecting customers trying to buy Bruce Springsteen tickets to its own ticket reselling Web site, which charged dramatically more than the original price. Fans and musicians were outraged.
A week ago, New Jersey Attorney General Anne Milgram sued several companies who offered tickets to Springsteen shows this fall before they were available to the public.
In Albany, negotiations continue.
"The governor's office is working with the Legislature on this bill and will review the final legislation once it has been delivered to his desk," said Paterson spokesman Morgan Hook.
Copyright © 2009 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
