Blog

Blog

view:  full / summary

Appellate Attorneys Win Appeal Over Warnings on Advertisements for Sugary Drinks

Posted on 10 February, 2019 at 16:50 Comments comments (1192)

Appellate attorneys for the beverage industry were successful in their appeal of a San Francisco law requiring warnings on advertising for sugary drinks. According to NPR, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that a "San Francisco law requiring the beverage industry to post health warnings on advertisements for soda and other sugar-sweetened drinks' was unconstitutional. The court reasoned that the law violated the First Amendment by infringing on protected commercial speech.


The appeal stems from the challenge of a law passed in the city and county of San Francisco that required all advertising for sugary drinks to contain a warning taking up twenty percent of the ad space. The warning label was required to read "Drinking beverages with added sugar(s) contributes to obesity, diabetes, and tooth decay. This is a message from the City and County of San Francisco." The city argued that the warning was to protect the health of its residents with the goal of reducing obesity. The law was opposed by the beverage industry, retail groups and advertisers who argued it infringed on their right to free speech.


Written by:   Alexandra Siskopoulos, Esq.

Telephone:   (646) 942-1798

Email:          [email protected]


Disclaimer: This Blog/Web Site is made available by the lawyer or law firm publisher for educational purposes only as well as to give you general information and a general understanding of the law, not to provide specific legal advice. By using this blog site you understand that there is no attorney client relationship between you and the Blog/Web Site publisher. The Blog/Web Site should not be used as a substitute for competent legal advice from a licensed professional attorney in your state.

Appellate Court Decides Profit Dispute Over Drake's Albums

Posted on 8 February, 2019 at 16:10 Comments comments (2134)

According to The Hollywood Reporter, a New York appellate court has decided an ongoing dispute over profits from Drake's albums. The appeal stems from a lower court decision which allowed Aspire Music Group which "first signed musical superstar Drake to pursue profits claims against Universal Music." Aspire was co-founded by Lil Wayne's former manager Cortez Bryant who was alleging that "Cash Money Records and UMG Recordings are cheating a deal that entitled Aspire to one-third of net profits from Drake's first six solo albums." Part of the allegations included claims that Universal was acting as an alter ego of Cash Money. The complaint essentially alleged that Universal took control of Cash Money when it was having financial problems and by taking control, Universal took larger distribution fees reducing the profits Aspire was entitled to under existing agreements. 


The appellate court reversed the trial court's decision to allow the claims against Universal to proceed. The court reasoned that the complaint does not allege that Universal used its control over Cash Money to commit a wrong against Aspire stating that the "allegations describe legitimate business conduct; there is no indication that Universal engaged in this conduct for the purpose of harming plaintiff."


Written by:   Alexandra Siskopoulos, Esq.

Telephone:   (646) 942-1798

Email:          [email protected]


Disclaimer: This Blog/Web Site is made available by the lawyer or law firm publisher for educational purposes only as well as to give you general information and a general understanding of the law, not to provide specific legal advice. By using this blog site you understand that there is no attorney client relationship between you and the Blog/Web Site publisher. The Blog/Web Site should not be used as a substitute for competent legal advice from a licensed professional attorney in your state.

Third Circuit Finds Delaware's Judicial Balance Mandate Unconstitutional

Posted on 7 February, 2019 at 16:15 Comments comments (990)

The Third Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled that Delaware's constitutional provision requiring that judicial nominations be split between the State's two major political parties is unconstitutional. According to Delaware Online, the federal appellate court found that the constitutional provision violated the First Amendment despite the State's claim that the provision was designed to bring balance to the judicial bench.


The law was challenged by an individual who is politically independent and "claimed he wanted to apply for judgeships, but he didn't meet the political affiliation requirements." The appellate court found that "[b]ecause the governor has not shown that [the mandate] is narrowly tailored to further a vital state interest, the infringement on judicial candidates' association rights is unconstitutional." The court reasoned that the State's aim to achieve political balance in the judiciary does not justify barring candidates who do not belong to either the Democratic or Republican parties. 


Written by:   Alexandra Siskopoulos, Esq.

Telephone:   (646) 942-1798

Email:          [email protected]


Disclaimer: This Blog/Web Site is made available by the lawyer or law firm publisher for educational purposes only as well as to give you general information and a general understanding of the law, not to provide specific legal advice. By using this blog site you understand that there is no attorney client relationship between you and the Blog/Web Site publisher. The Blog/Web Site should not be used as a substitute for competent legal advice from a licensed professional attorney in your state.

U.S. Supreme Court Rules Criminal Defendants Who are Acquitted are Entitled to Refund of Court Costs and Restitution

Posted on 5 February, 2019 at 10:45 Comments comments (1305)

The Supreme Court of the United States has ruled that when criminal convictions are overturned on appeal, court fees and restitution should be refunded to the defendant. According to the ABA Journal, the U.S. Supreme Court examined a Colorado case in which criminal defendants were acquitted after an appeal and tackled the issue of whether the State was required to refund the defendants for monies paid as part of their convictions.


The State argued that the reversal of the convictions did not require the State to refund monies paid to them in the amount of court costs and restitution unless the defendants proved in a civil suit by clear and convincing evidence that they were innocent.  The Supreme Court agreed with the defendants position that they should not have to prove their innocence in a civil suit in order to be refunded their money. The court reasoned that defendants should not be saddled with a burden of proof to get their money back. 


Written by:   Alexandra Siskopoulos, Esq.

Telephone:   (646) 942-1798

Email:          [email protected]


Disclaimer: This Blog/Web Site is made available by the lawyer or law firm publisher for educational purposes only as well as to give you general information and a general understanding of the law, not to provide specific legal advice. By using this blog site you understand that there is no attorney client relationship between you and the Blog/Web Site publisher. The Blog/Web Site should not be used as a substitute for competent legal advice from a licensed professional attorney in your state.

Appellate Court Addresses Bad Faith Claims in New York Insurance Law

Posted on 31 January, 2019 at 14:45 Comments comments (234)

An appellate court in New York has set forth the minimum pleading requirements for bad faith claims against insurers. According to Insurance Business America, the appeals court has established that there are no heightened pleading requirements consequential damages in bad faith claims. In the underlying case, the insurer argued that when pleading the foreseeability of consequential damages, the plaintiff should be required to explain in some detail how the damages were reasonably foreseeable. The court rejected this heightened pleading requirement.


Additionally, the insurer was attempting to argue that the bad faith claim was duplicative of the breach of contract claim and this argument was also rejected by the appellate court. The court again set forth that New York recognizes both claims and if the breach of contract claim and bad faith claim are pled properly, they are not necessarily duplicative. 


Written by:   Alexandra Siskopoulos, Esq.

Telephone:   (646) 942-1798

Email:          [email protected]


Disclaimer: This Blog/Web Site is made available by the lawyer or law firm publisher for educational purposes only as well as to give you general information and a general understanding of the law, not to provide specific legal advice. By using this blog site you understand that there is no attorney client relationship between you and the Blog/Web Site publisher. The Blog/Web Site should not be used as a substitute for competent legal advice from a licensed professional attorney in your state.

Appellate Attorneys Argue Over Legality of Habitual Drunkard Law

Posted on 30 January, 2019 at 17:35 Comments comments (1)

The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals will hear en banc arguments over the legality of Virginia's "habitual drunkard" law. According to The Daily Progress, the law "allows a circuit court to civilly find someone to be a 'habitual drunkard' and thereafter be prosecuted for possessing or consuming alcohol, or attempting to do so." Four homeless alcoholics challenged the law arguing that it criminalizes a person's status (being a homeless alcoholic) rather than a crime. The four individuals have been prosecuted between 11 to more than 30 times. Their attorneys argue that the law unconstitutionally targets the homeless population because non-homeless alcoholics can often avoid being prosecuted because they can simply get drunk and remain drunk in their home. A lower court and a three judge appellate panel have already found the law valid, but the entire appellate bench will convene to decide the issue once again. 


The appellate attorneys for the state have argued previously that the law is designed to protect the both the alcoholic and the public. They argued that alcoholics present a public safety issue because they pass out on the streets, create disturbances while drunk which put them at risk for being harmed, and that they can present a dangerous situation for people coming into contact with them when they are acting irrationally while drunk. The attorneys further argued that the state provides numerous other means of dealing with alcoholism including treatment and rehabilitation, but incarceration is also a legitimate means to address the public safety concern that alcoholics create. 


Written by:   Alexandra Siskopoulos, Esq.

Telephone:   (646) 942-1798

Email:          [email protected]


Disclaimer: This Blog/Web Site is made available by the lawyer or law firm publisher for educational purposes only as well as to give you general information and a general understanding of the law, not to provide specific legal advice. By using this blog site you understand that there is no attorney client relationship between you and the Blog/Web Site publisher. The Blog/Web Site should not be used as a substitute for competent legal advice from a licensed professional attorney in your state.

Appeals Court Rules Age Discrimination Act Does Not Apply to Job Applicants

Posted on 28 January, 2019 at 11:15 Comments comments (0)

According to Forbes, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled that the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) only protects current employees and does not cover external applicants. The case stems from a lawsuit wherein a 58 year old attorney was seeking a job with a medical supply company's legal department. The company was seeking to hire an individual with three to seven years of relevant legal experience but no more than seven years. Despite having more than seven years experience, the individual applied and was not hired. Instead, the company hired a 29 year old with much less experience.


The individual argued that the seven year experience cap was discriminatory by nature and in violation of federal law. The appeals court disagreed and in "an 8-4 decision, the majority contended that the statute was meant to protect employees within the company from being denied employment opportunities due to age, not applicants seeking employment."


Written by:   Alexandra Siskopoulos, Esq.

Telephone:   (646) 942-1798

Email:          [email protected]


Disclaimer: This Blog/Web Site is made available by the lawyer or law firm publisher for educational purposes only as well as to give you general information and a general understanding of the law, not to provide specific legal advice. By using this blog site you understand that there is no attorney client relationship between you and the Blog/Web Site publisher. The Blog/Web Site should not be used as a substitute for competent legal advice from a licensed professional attorney in your state.

Federal Appeals Court Rules Undocumented Immigrants Do Not Have Second Amendment Right to Bear Arms

Posted on 9 January, 2019 at 10:30 Comments comments (0)

According to the Los Angeles Times, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has held that "a law barring immigrants who are in the country without authorization from owning guns does not violate the 2nd Amendment." The appeal stems from an action brought by a San Jose resident who was convicted of violating the federal law. He appealed arguing that the Second Amendment guarantees the right of the people to bear arms and that the law is unconstitutional because he should be afforded that right even though he is not in the country legally.


The Ninth Circuit disagreed with this argument finding that the government's interest in controlling crime and ensuring public safety are promoted by the law stating that undocumented immigrants “have already shown they are unable or unwilling to conform their conduct to the laws of this country” and “are difficult to monitor due to an inherent incentive to falsify information and evade law enforcement.”


According to the article, the appellant was brought to the U.S. at the age of four when his mother brought him into the country without permission. He was expelled from high school for being a member of a gang after which his parents sent him to Mexico. He then tried to re-enter the country three times illegally and succeeded in 2005. He works for his father's landscaping business and married a U.S. citizen, but never applied for citizenship. In 2014, "police arrested him after discovering he had a stolen bicycle, a loaded revolver, what appeared to be homemade silencers for the gun and bolt cutters." His attorney believes that the decision is unfair stating that “[t]he Constitution applies to undocumented people in all other regards.”


Written by:   Alexandra Siskopoulos, Esq.

Telephone:   (646) 942-1798

Email:          [email protected]


Disclaimer: This Blog/Web Site is made available by the lawyer or law firm publisher for educational purposes only as well as to give you general information and a general understanding of the law, not to provide specific legal advice. By using this blog site you understand that there is no attorney client relationship between you and the Blog/Web Site publisher. The Blog/Web Site should not be used as a substitute for competent legal advice from a licensed professional attorney in your state.

Appeals Court Rules Politicians Cannot Block Social Media Posts

Posted on 8 January, 2019 at 13:10 Comments comments (0)

The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled that politicians cannot block dissenters from commenting on their social media accounts. According to Reuters, a "federal appeals court said on Monday a Virginia politician violated the Constitution by temporarily blocking a critic from her Facebook page."


The appeal stems from a case in which a politician, Phyllis Randall, who is chair of a county board of supervisors, banned a critic from her Facebook page for twelve hours after he accused her and others on the board of corruption and conflicts of interest. The critic sued claiming his First Amendment right to freedom of speech was violated. Randall argued that her Facebook page was a private website and that when she deleted her post along with all the comments, including her critic's, she was well within her rights.


The federal appellate court found that Randall's Facebook page had an "interactive component" making it a public forum and when she deleted the post she violated the First Amendment.


Written by:   Alexandra Siskopoulos, Esq.

Telephone:   (646) 942-1798

Email:          [email protected]


Disclaimer: This Blog/Web Site is made available by the lawyer or law firm publisher for educational purposes only as well as to give you general information and a general understanding of the law, not to provide specific legal advice. By using this blog site you understand that there is no attorney client relationship between you and the Blog/Web Site publisher. The Blog/Web Site should not be used as a substitute for competent legal advice from a licensed professional attorney in your state.

U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ginsburg to Miss Oral Arguments

Posted on 7 January, 2019 at 11:20 Comments comments (0)

U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg will not hear oral arguments before the Supreme Court. According to MSN, this is the first time the justice will not attend arguments.


Justice Ginsburg underwent surgury last month to remove two cancerous nodules from her lungs. The justice had previously been treated for colon cancer and pancreatic cancer, yet never missed an argument. Justice Ginsburg will be working from home and will review the briefs and transcripts of the arguments.


Written by:   Alexandra Siskopoulos, Esq.

Telephone:   (646) 942-1798

Email:          [email protected]


Disclaimer: This Blog/Web Site is made available by the lawyer or law firm publisher for educational purposes only as well as to give you general information and a general understanding of the law, not to provide specific legal advice. By using this blog site you understand that there is no attorney client relationship between you and the Blog/Web Site publisher. The Blog/Web Site should not be used as a substitute for competent legal advice from a licensed professional attorney in your state.


Rss_feed