News from Iowa
|
Iowa inmate's life sentence appeal receives new life
Court: Iowa Supreme Court
|
|---|
| The Iowa Supreme Court came to a ruling on March 29, 2013 that could give a man, convicted of a murder committed more than a decade ago, the chance to seek post-conviction relief.[6][7] Absent the court's decision, the man's ability to make such an appeal would have been precluded some time ago by the three year statute of limitations. This court's decision in another murder case in 2006, however, breathed new life into Phuoc Thanh Nguyen's prayer for relief.[6]
Nguyen was convicted of first-degree murder in 1999 and began serving his life sentence, without parole. His conviction was based on a general verdict of guilty when the jury was presented with both a theory of felony-murder and first-degree murder. This meant that, according to the case, there was "no indication as to which basis of guilt the jury accepted" in order to return the guilty verdict.[8] Nguyen's first attempt at post-conviction relief was filed within the three year statute of limitations, but with no success.[7]
In 2006, the court held in State v. Heemstra, where the act causing willful injury (which qualifies on its own as a felony) "is the same act that causes the victim's death, the former is merged into the murder and therefore cannot serve as the predicate felony for felony-murder purposes."[8] The "merger doctrine," as this theory is coined, is precisely what Nguyen sought to have applied to his case. However, Nguyen still faced an uphill climb, since the court decided in 2009 that Heemstra would not apply retroactively to his or other similarly situated cases.[7]
Despite this court's decision in Heemstra, Nguyen's most recent appeal has presented new issues that were not raised in Heemstra or subsequent cases. Nguyen argued that retroactive application of the Heemstra rule is "required by the equal protection, due process, and separation of powers clauses of the Iowa Constitution, as well as the Equal Protection Clause of the United States Constitution."[7] For this reason, the Iowa Supreme Court reversed the district court's dismissal and remanded the case to the Polk County District Court for a hearing on the new issues raised by Nguyen.[6][7] |
|
|
News from Michigan
|
Michigan Judge rules: lawsuit against right-to-work law will move forward
Court: 30th Circuit Court, Michigan
|
|---|
| An Ingham County Circuit Court judge has refused to dismiss a lawsuit alleging that Michigan's right-to-work law was enacted in violation of the State's Open Meetings Act. The lawsuit was brought on behalf of labor supporters who argue that state lawmakers violated the act when they closed the doors of the Capitol for nearly five hours on December 6, 2012, thereby denying the public access to observe the debate on the right-to work bill when it first hit the House floor.[9]
The right-to-work law was passed by a Republican-majority House and signed into law by Governor Rick Snyder on December 11, 2012. The law largely limits the power and rights of labor unions by allowing workers under union contracts to opt out of paying union dues as a condition of their employment.[10]
Judge William E. Collette denied the State's request for dismissal of the suit, expressing concern over allegations that Republican lawmakers had their staff occupy seats in the House gallery, thereby denying public access to the legislative process. With equal concern, Judge Collette addressed the counsel for the labor supporters stating, “I don’t know if you have a good case... [y]ou have a real uphill battle but there are some haystacks on fire around the field.”[11]
A hearing schedule for the lawsuit is now slated for April 11 with witness testimony expected to be taken this summer.[11] |
|
|
News from New York
|
New York's top court upholds online tax
Court: New York Court of Appeals
|
|---|
| On Thursday, March 28th, the New York Court of Appeals ruled that the state of New York could collect sales tax for online purchases from companies based outside of the state.[12][13][14][15] The ruling came in response to lawsuits filed by both Amazon.com and Overstock.com alleging that the practice was in violation of the U.S. Constitution's Commerce Clause.[12]
The ruling was issued 4-to-1, and the court noted that even though the companies may not have corporate offices in New York, they still have a "substantial nexus," within the state that solicits in-state business, and there is no reason that sales tax should be exempted for these customers and vendors.[12] A substantial nexus is defined as having a significant physical presence in the state, in this case through advertisements and/or affiliations with New York based websites. There were questions as to the reasoning behind the ruling, even from those that issued it. Chief Justice Jonathan Lippman noted that the test for physical presence may be outdated in our increasingly virtual world, and in his dissenting opinion, Robert S. Smith argued that advertising through or affiliation with New York based websites did not constitute a physical presence in the state.[12]
Overstock.com is considering an appeal to the United States Supreme Court, and Amazon.com has stated many times that they support a federal decision in the matter, rather than a state-by-state approach, which is much more complicated to implement and abide by.[14] |
|
|
News from Oregon
|
Oregon Supreme Court halts creation of pipeline in Clatsop County
Court: Oregon Supreme Court
|
|---|
| On March 28, 2013, the Oregon Supreme Court refused to review an appeal by the Oregon Pipeline Company developers, effectively ending the planned construction of a new liquefied natural gas terminal and 41-mile pipeline in Clatsop County. The terminal and pipeline were originally blocked by the Clatsop County Commission who denied the pipeline company's land use application due to its failure to meet public safety and salmon protections in the county, which led the pipeline company to challenge the commission's decision.[16]
The first decision came from the Clatsop County Circuit Court where Judge Philip L. Nelson ruled in favor of the County Commission. The Pipeline Company then appealed to the Oregon Court of Appeals, which upheld Judge Nelson's previous ruling. Thereafter they made a final unsuccessful attempt to appeal at the Supreme Court.[16]
Local conservation groups were satisfied with the decision.
| “
|
This is a resounding victory for the citizens of Clatsop County. Oregon LNG attempted to subvert the democratic process by challenging the right of Clatsop County to review a dangerous pipeline proposal. (The) decision casts serious doubt on the viability of Oregon LNG.[16] - Brett VandenHeuvel, executive director of the Columbia Riverkeeper[2]
|
”
|
|
|
|
News from Pennsylania
|
Pennsylvania Supreme Court refuses to hear 'indigent parent' case
Court: Pennsylvania Supreme Court
|
|---|
| On April 2, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court refused to hear an appeal in the 2012 case of HCRA v. Pittas. The lower court holding which allows for adult children to be held legally responsible for nursing home, assisted living, and medical care debts of their indigent parents, is good law in Pennsylvania.
In May 2012, the Pennsylvania Superior Court held a son financially responsible for his mother's $92,943 nursing home bill under the Pennsylvania Indigent Support Law. Often referred to as "filial support," a relative can be held financially "responsible to care for and maintain or financially assist an indigent person."[17] As a result of this statute, nursing homes and other medical providers began suing the children of the elderly who were unable to pay their bills.
In this particular case, John Pittas moved his mother into a nursing home operated by the Plaintiff, HRCA, for a period of six months after she was injured in a car accident. The nursing home filed for medicaid benefits on behalf of John's mother to cover the costs but, when the application process took longer than expected, HRCA sued and obtained a judgment against John in excess of $90,000. It seems other family members were available to sue but HRCA chose to go after John, perhaps because he was better financially situated to satisfy the judgment.[17] He owns a restaurant in Schwenksville, PA.[18]
The Superior Court defined indigent not as "completely destitute and helpless" but as lacking "sufficient means to pay for her care and maintenance".[17] Thus, "if she didn’t have the resources to pay for [the entirety of] her own care, and John had the ability to provide support, he was liable."[17] All that existed to tie John to the unpaid bill was his familial relationship to the patient. Additionally, the Superior Court added the caveat that the parent cannot "have deserted the adult child for a lengthy period during his childhood."[18] With this case, adult children in Pennsylvania became responsible for the unpaid medical bills of their parents. No court has yet extended the rule past medical expenses.
When this case was brought to the attention of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, the court denied the request to hear arguments in the matter, allowing the law as interpreted by the Superior Court to stand. There are some limitations if the adult child cannot pay but adult children with parents receiving any form of assisted care in Pennsylvania are likely to be worried.[18] Two bills have been introduced into the state legislature which would overturn the law as it stands now.[18] |
|
|
