News from Colorado
|
 Court: Colorado 3rd Judicial District
|
|---|
| Shockwaves reverberated around the sports world when, in May 2012, NFL legend Junior Seau committed suicide in his home. A study of his brain later showed that Seau was suffering from degenerative brain disease at the time he took his own life. Concerns have risen in the last decade about a link between the concussions suffered by football players at all levels of the sport and degenerative brain conditions like the one found in Seau's brain.[5] In the last several years, many players have filed complaints against helmet maker Riddell for negligence in failing to warn of concussion dangers.[6]
On April 13, a jury in the Third Judicial District court in Las Animas rendered a verdict in a case involving a high school player who, while wearing a Riddell helmet, suffered a concussion and later developed severe brain damage as a result. The teen, Rhett Ridolfi, was hit while at practice and experienced concussion symptoms. He was not taken to the hospital immediately, however, and now suffers from brain damage and paralysis on his left side. His family sued Riddell and personnel from Trinidad High School for damages and alleged that the helmets were designed defectively. In the end, the jury disagreed with the defective design allegation; it did, however, award the family $11.5 million for negligence on the part of Riddell and two coaches remaining in the suit. (The family settled with three other individuals prior to trial.)
Colorado follows the comparative negligence regime when assessing damages in tort cases. The jury was tasked with assigning a percentage of blame for Ridolfi's injuries to each of the defendants. Riddell was found 27 percent liable, making their portion of the jury award $3.1 million. The company has indicated they will appeal, while the attorney for Ridolfi, Frank Azar, has said he will ask the court to force Riddell to pay the entire jury award. Riddell plans to appeal what it feels is an abuse of discretion on the part of the trial judge.
Riddell issued a statement after the verdict:
| “
|
"We are confident that the jury would have reached a different conclusion had the Court not erroneously excluded the testimony of our warnings expert. We intend to appeal this verdict, and we remain steadfast in our belief that Riddell designs and manufactures the most protective football headgear for the athlete."[7][8]
|
”
|
Azar appears confident that the case will withstand appellate review. "I think this jury has said [Riddell is] in very serious trouble."[6] Further, Azar feels this jury verdict "could affect 'thousands of pending individual cases'."[7] |
|
|
News from Florida
|
Florida's self-defense law upheld in spite of illegal gun possession
Court: Florida Second District Court of Appeal
|
|---|
| On April 10, 2013, the 2nd District Court of Appeal in Florida ruled that a convicted felon who shot and killed a man while illegally carrying a gun is protected by the state's self-defense law. The law in question, commonly referred to as the "Stand Your Ground" law, allows for one to use deadly force to protect oneself from death or bodily harm.[9]
Aaron A. Little, according to the finding of facts by the court, was threatened by Demond Brooks on his way to his girlfriend's house. On their way there, Little and his friend approached Terry Lester, who was in the driveway of his mother's house. When Little walked up, Brooks jumped out of a car, pointed two handguns at Little and began to yell at him. Hearing the commotion, Lester's mother, Ms. Speed, came outside, which caused enough of a distraction for Little to run into the house for shelter. Once inside, Little pulled out a gun. When Lester and his mother found out about the gun, they ordered Little out of the house. He exited and passed Brooks, who then had his guns down by his sides. As Little backed away and the two exchanged some words, Brooks raised his guns again. At this, Little pulled out his own weapon (which he had kept hidden from Brooks), closed his eyes, and fired off several shots, killing Brooks.[10]
Judge Alane C. Laboda, of the 20th Circuit Court, initially ruled that the Stand Your Ground law did not apply in this case. The prosecution made two main arguments. First, they argued that Little was not acting in self-defense because, after removing himself from the threat and entering the house, he then reengaged Brooks outside. Also, they said that Little was not entitled to immunity for self-defense because, as a convicted felon, he was engaged in unlawful activity by possessing a firearm.[10]
The appellate court reversed the lower court's decision, ruling:
| “
|
"[Little's] status as a felon in illegal possession of a firearm did not preclude that claim of immunity. And, as set forth above, Little established by a preponderance of the evidence that his use of force was justified to prevent his imminent death or great bodily harm."[10][8]
|
”
|
The case, however, was not completely conclusive, as the appellate court has asked the Florida Supreme Court to weigh in on the issue.[9][11] |
|
|
News from Ohio
|
Famed mass-tort lawyer fights disbarment in Ohio
Court: Ohio Supreme Court
|
|---|
| Famed mass-tort litigator, Stanley Chesley, already disbarred by the Kentucky Supreme Court in March of 2013 (see: Courtroom Weekly:Discipline in the courts, March 28, 2013) was most recently disbarred by the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan on April 5. Likewise, Chief Judge Richard Young of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana has asked Chesley to show cause within thirty days of his disbarment from Kentucky as to why he should not be barred from practicing law in Indiana’s Southern District.[12]
Next, Chesley faces disbarment in Ohio. Due to Ohio and Kentucky’s reciprocal agreement, a disbarment in Kentucky may be recognized in Ohio. Under the Ohio Supreme Court rules, Chesley, whose disbarment in Kentucky takes effect immediately, must notify the Ohio Supreme Court’s disciplinary counsel within thirty days of his disbarment in Kentucky. Chesley then has twenty days to inform the court of any reasons why the same disciplinary actions should not be imposed in Ohio. If Chesley is unable to make such a showing, the Ohio Supreme Court may then impose comparable or identical disciplinary measures imposed by Kentucky.[13] |
|
|
News from Minnesota
|
Minnesota Supreme Court adoption case gives foster parents advantage over family members
Court: Minnesota Supreme Court
|
|---|
| In a 5-2 decision handed down by the Minnesota Supreme Court on March 27, 2013, two children's foster parents were granted adoption rights over the children's grandparent.[14] This decision was made by the Hennepin County District Court and then subsequently affirmed by both the Minnesota Court of Appeals and the Minnesota Supreme Court.[15] One of the issues addressed in the case was whether Minnesota statutes require the court to look to a relative's application for adoption first, and to look no further upon finding that placing the child with relatives would be in the child's best interest.[16] Another issue addressed was based on the different races of the parties involved and the ability of a person of a different race to provide for the cultural needs of the child, as considered by the Minnesota statute.[15] The foster parents in this case are caucasian while the two children and their grandparent are African-American.[16]
The Court first covered the District Court's application of Minnesota Statute Section 259.57, subdivision 2(c), "which requires the court to 'consider placement, consistent with the child’s best interests and in the following order, with (1) a relative or relatives of the child, or (2) an important friend with whom the child has resided or had significant contact.'"[15] The Court found that, even though the District Court analyzed both the foster parents' and the grandparent's applications at the same time, the District Court's actions were sufficient to meet the order of consideration required by the statute. The District Court's analysis involved looking at a factor on the grandparent's application, forming a conclusion on that factor, and then reviewing that same factor on the foster parents' application. Based on the outcomes of these factors, the District Court determined that granting adoption to the foster parents would be in the children's best interests and, therefore, granting the adoption to the grandparent could not have been in the children's best interests.[15]
The Court turned next to the discussion of whether the District Court erred in its determination of the best interests of the children when balancing the following factors from the statute:
| “
|
(1) the child’s current functioning and behaviors; (2) the medical needs of the child; (3) the educational needs of the child; (4) the developmental needs of the child; (5) the child’s history and past experience; (6) the child’s religious and cultural needs; (7) the child’s connection with a community, school, and faith community; (8) the child’s interests and talents; (9) the child’s relationship to current caretakers, parents, siblings, and relatives; and (10) the reasonable preference of the child, if the court, or the child-placing agency in the case of a voluntary placement, deems the child to be of sufficient age to express preferences.[15][8]
|
”
|
While all of these factors receive consideration, one of the arguments the grandparent made was that the District Court did not give proper weight to her ability to best meet the children’s cultural needs.[15] The Court made note that, while the foster parents and their children were caucasian, the couple had adopted an Asian-American boy and an African-American boy, and were allowing one of their African-American friends to live with them.[16] According to the Court, the District Court did not make any findings as to how the foster parents were going to be able to meet the cultural needs of the children. However, application of the deferential standard of review would have meant that, to vacate the decision, the Court needed to find that the lower court abused its discretion, which was not the case here.[15]
According to a quote from the grandmother's lawyer, this decision will result in the foster parents always having an advantage because they will have cared for the children for quite some time before a decision in the case is made.[14] While the Minnesota Supreme Court has made a decision, the case may not yet be over. The grandparent of the children is contemplating taking the case to the U.S. Supreme Court.[14] The Star Tribune quoted her saying "The system is broken [and] [t]his isn't over by a long shot."[14] |
|
|
News from Louisiana
|
Louisiana tax firm shut down in federal suit
Court: United States District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana
|
|---|
| For Ann Williams, the 2013 tax season brought more than an audit's worth of trouble.
The U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana has permanently prohibited Williams, owner of tax preparation firm Ann's Tax Service, from preparing federal returns for clients. According to a government complaint, the firm repeatedly slanted customers' tax liability by misreporting business income, exaggerating and fabricating business expenses, and falsely claiming the earned-come credit. The government estimates that as much as $2.2 million in tax revenue was lost as a result of the fraud.[17]
While Williams and her firm did not admit to the allegations brought against them, they agreed to the civil injunction order issued on April 10 by Louisiana Judge James J. Brady. The U.S. Attorney's Office of the Middle District of Louisiana acted as local counsel for the lawsuit.[17]
In its annual "Dirty Dozen Tax Scams" list, which lists a variety of illegal schemes that can cause trouble for taxpayers, the IRS warns citizens of return-preparer fraud. It is important to remember, especially for the 60 percent of taxpayers that rely on assistance from tax professionals, that taxpayers themselves are legally responsible for the information on their return no matter who prepares it.[18]
Says IRS Acting Commissioner Steven T. Miller,
| “
|
This tax season, the IRS has stepped up its efforts to protect taxpayers from a wide range of schemes, including moving aggressively to combat identity theft and refund fraud. … Don't let a scam artist steal from you or talk you into doing something you will regret later."[18][8]
|
”
|
|
|
|
