Copyright

(c) 2010-2024 Jon L Gelman, All Rights Reserved.
Showing posts with label Supreme Court of the United States. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Supreme Court of the United States. Show all posts

Sunday, July 20, 2014

Port of Seattle, Eagle Marine Agree to Make Terminal 5 Big Ship Ready

Today's post is shared from Kit Case of Causey Law (Longshore Law Firm) of Seattle Washington.

The Port of Seattle and Eagle Marine Services (EMS), operator of Terminal 5, announced on May
Kit Case
16th a proposal to relocate its cargo and breakbulk activities to another terminal so that the port can modernize Terminal 5 to handle the bigger ships that are changing international shipping.

“If we’re going to keep jobs in Washington state, we need investments that make us globally competitive,” said Port of Seattle Commissioner Bill Bryant. “That’s why we’re rebuilding T5. We’re investing in jobs. Modernizing T5 so it can handle the new big ships is the first step in realigning our port for the future.”

“As we are working to preserve maritime jobs in Seattle, the Commission is moving forward to strengthen cooperation with the Port of Tacoma to increase trade in Puget Sound,” said Port of Seattle Commissioner John Creighton. “We’re having productive talks on how we can make the Puget Sound gateway more competitive and create new jobs.”

ILWU Local 19 appreciates the work the Port of Seattle and terminal operators are doing to keep cargo here in Seattle by making each of our terminals big ship ready,” said ILWU Local 19 President Cam Williams. “By preparing for the future, we insure that jobs will stay in the region.”

Shipping lines are consolidating into new alliances, and have been launching much bigger ships as part of their strategy to reduce costs. While three of the port’s container terminals are already home to Super Post-Panamax cranes that service 10,000 TEU vessels and above, the existing cranes at Terminal 5 are not able to handle these bigger ships.

Under the proposal, EMS would shift its operations to Terminal 18, allowing EMS to preserve container volume and ship calls. This commitment will preserve maritime jobs that depend on cargo flowing today through T5. Cargo destined to T5, under this proposal, would begin transitioning to T18 in mid-June. The proposal with EMS is tentative pending approval by the Port of Seattle Commission.

“T5 needs to be modernized for the bigger ships that are already here, we applaud the Port in working with us to preserve our customers’ cargo through this gateway,” said Nathaniel Seeds, COO of Eagle Marine Services, Ltd.

Maintaining efficient cargo throughput is essential for moving goods in and out of the port. With four in ten jobs in Washington dependent on trade, these terminal improvements will insure that Washington goods can get out of the Port of Seattle and into markets world-wide.

“Preserving vessel service capacity is good for exporters, we appreciate the Port of Seattle’s efforts to keep this gateway competitive,” said Anderson Hay CEO & President Mark Anderson.

The Port has also received approval from the federal government to let the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers begin studying the potential for a project that may result in the deepening of the West Waterway channel near the terminal.

Wednesday, January 29, 2014

Supreme Court Rules for Employers in Two Cases

Today's post was shared by WSJ Law Blog and comes from blogs.wsj.com

The Supreme Court Monday gave airlines a wide berth to report potential security threats, dismissing a pilot’s lawsuit alleging his employer defamed him by telling the Transportation Security Administration he could be armed and mentally unstable.

Separately, the court rejected a claim by steelworkers from Gary, Ind., that they were entitled to pay for time spent putting on safety gear, finding that the task qualified as “changing clothes,” for which their union contract didn’t require compensation.

Finally, Monday, the court sided with a convicted heroin dealer to rule that he couldn’t be punished for the death of one of his customers because of evidence that the man’s health was so poor he might have died even without the narcotic.

All three decisions were unanimous or nearly so, underscoring that despite gulfs in the most charged disputes, justices of different ideological backgrounds agree on a significant number of legal issues. Read the full story here.

[Click here to see the original post]

Related articles

Thursday, January 16, 2014

Supreme Court case highlights U.S. labor agency political divide

Today's post was shared by Steven Greenhouse and comes from www.reuters.com

WASHINGTON/NEW YORK (Reuters) - When the U.S. Supreme Court hears arguments on Monday in a case involving soda bottler Noel Canning Corp., presidential appointment power will be the main dispute, but the case will also put on display one of Washington's most politically polarizing agencies - the National Labor Relations Board.

Created nearly 80 years ago to supervise union elections and protect workers' rights to organize, the NLRB is a battleground for pro-labor Democrats and pro-management Republicans.

Deep disagreement between the two sides over the NLRB's role - and over organized labor itself - makes disputes involving the board uncommonly bitter and subjects its agenda to constant reshaping, depending on which party controls the White House.

"It's no accident ... that this major constitutional showdown is occurring over appointments to the board," said AFL-CIO General Counsel Craig Becker, a former board member.

Monday's case began as a labor dispute. The NLRB found in February 2012 that Noel Canning, a Pepsi bottler in Yakima, Washington, had reneged on a verbal contract during union negotiations. The company appealed to the courts, attracting the support of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, conservative interest groups and Republican leaders in Congress. The case evolved into a constitutional challenge to the president's power to make appointments to key posts without Senate confirmation.

At issue are "recess appointments" made in January 2012 by...


[Click here to see the rest of this post]

Wednesday, November 13, 2013

FDA Proposes Letting Generic-Drug Makers Change Labels

Today's post was shared by FairWarning and comes from online.wsj.com

The Food and Drug Administration proposed allowing generic drug companies to change drug labels after getting reports of bad reactions in patients, a step that could open the generic industry up to greater potential legal liability.
In 2011 and again this year, the Supreme Court issued rulings that shielded generic drug makers from consumer personal-injury lawsuits, even though the justices have allowed similar product-liability claims against makers of branded drugs.
The step Friday by the FDA means that generic companies—which sell about 84% of the prescription drugs by volume in the U.S.—would have the same ability to change their labels as brand companies. The FDA would review any proposed changes, as it already does with changes to branded-drug labels.
"Our effort is to keep all the labels the same, and to level the playing field," said Janet Woodcock, director of the FDA's center for drug evaluation and research. The proposal, she said, "would change current procedures, where only the brand companies can unilaterally put certain safety information in the label."
The Generic Pharmaceutical Association reacted cautiously, saying it is concerned that multiple labels on the same drug "could drive up costs…and should be approached very carefully."
Some of the leading makers of generic drugs include Hospira Inc., HSP +0.55%Hospira Inc.U.S.: NYSE$38.74 +0.21+0.55% Nov. 12, 2013 4:00 pm Volume (Delayed 15m) : 2.36MAFTER HOURS$38.58 -0.16-0.43% Nov. 12, 2013...
[Click here to see the rest of this post]

Thursday, October 24, 2013

Medical Device Litigation: Medtronic, Inc. v. Stengel

The US Supreme Court has invited The Solicitor General to comment on the the issue of Federal pre-emption of medical-device litigation. The petition for certiorari is still pending in this matter. Today's post was shared by WCBlog and comes from www.scotusblog.com


Issue: Whether the Medical Device Amendments to the federal Food,Drug, and Cosmetic Act preempt a state-law claim alleging that a medical device manufacturer violated a duty under federal law to report adverse-event information to the Food and Drug Administration.

DateProceedings and Orders
Mar 28 2013Application (12A931) to extend the time to file a petition for a writ of certiorari from April 10, 2013 to June 9, 2013, submitted to Justice Kennedy.
Apr 1 2013Application (12A931) granted by Justice Kennedy extending the time to file until May 10, 2013.
May 10 2013Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due June 13, 2013)
May 30 2013Order extending time to file response to petition to and including July 15, 2013.
Jun 10 2013Brief amicus curiae of DRI -The Voice of the Defense Bar filed.
Jun 13 2013Brief amici curiae of Washington Legal Foundation, et al filed.
Jun 13 2013Brief amicus curiae of Product Liability Advisory Council, Inc. filed.
Jul 15 2013Brief of respondents Richard Stengel, and Mary Lou Stengel in opposition filed.
Jul 30 2013Reply of petitioner Medtronic, Inc. filed.
Jul 31 2013DISTRIBUTED for Conference of September 30, 2013.
Oct 7 2013The Solicitor General is invited to file a brief in this case expressing the views of the United States.
[Click here to see the rest of this post]

Friday, October 11, 2013

Raising the mandatory judicial retirement age to 80

Today's post was shared by Legal Newsline and comes from legalnewsline.com

The New York City Bar Association says it supports a proposal on the state’s Nov. 5 ballot to amend the New York Constitution to raise the mandatory retirement age to 80 for state Court of Appeals judges and Supreme Court justices.
The state constitution currently requires all state judges to retire at age 70.
However, judges of the state’s highest court, the Court of Appeals, and justices of the state’s main trial court, the Supreme Court, may serve for up to six years after retirement so long as court administrators certify every two years that the judge’s services are necessary to expedite the business of the court, and he or she is mentally and physically able and competent to perform the full duties of the office.
“The City Bar supports Proposal 6, consistent with our longstanding position that the mandatory judicial retirement age, which was enacted in 1869, is outdated,” the bar association said in a statement Monday.
“Many individuals who reach the age of 70 have a substantial number of productive years ahead of them. Many states and the federal judiciary permit judges to serve past the age of 70, and New York should as well.”
The association argues that raising the retirement age would ease a strained court system — in particular, permit the transfer of Supreme Court justices to the state’s overburdened family courts.
In Pennsylvania, three groups of judges sued over...
[Click here to see the rest of this post]

Thursday, October 10, 2013

Supreme Court Rejects Tobacco Companies’ Appeal of Florida Case

Today's post was shared by FairWarning and comes from www.insurancejournal.com


The U.S. Supreme Court rejected the tobacco industry’s appeal of a Florida ruling that may help thousands of smokers sue cigarette makers over smoking-related illnesses.

The nation’s highest court today turned away arguments by Altria Group Inc.’s Philip Morris USA, Reynolds American Inc.’s R.J. Reynolds Tobacco and Vector Group Ltd.’s Liggett unit. They challenged a $2.5 million award to the family of Charlotte Douglas, who died in 2008 of lung cancer at age 62.

The Supreme Court has repeatedly declined to intervene in tobacco litigation in Florida, where more than 4,500 smoker suits are pending. So far, Florida juries have returned verdicts totaling more than $500 million against the industry, the companies said in their appeal.

Cigarette makers are seeking to limit the effect of a 2006 Florida Supreme Court decision, which said a jury’s factual findings against the industry in a class-action case could serve as the starting point for individual suits. The Florida high court reaffirmed that ruling in the Douglas case.

At the U.S. Supreme Court, the tobacco companies said they were being deprived of their constitutional right to due process of law.

“It is impossible to conclude with any certainty in any of these cases that any jury in any proceeding has ever decided all the elements of the plaintiff’s claims in his or her favor,” the companies contended in their appeal.

Douglas’s widower, James,...
[Click here to see the rest of this post]

Friday, September 27, 2013

The Impact and Echoes of the Wal-Mart Discrimination Case

This article is shared from propublica.

The post is shared from probulica.org.

Betty Dukes talks to the press on the steps of the U.S. Supreme Court after the class action lawsuit Dukes v. Wal-Mart was argued before the court in Washington, March 29, 2011
(Photo: Reuters)
When the U.S. Supreme Court issued its 5-4 decision in Wal-Mart v. Dukes in June 2011, no one needed a Richter scale to know it was a Big One. In throwing out a mammoth lawsuit by women employees who claimed that they’d been systematically underpaid and underpromoted by the world’s biggest corporation, the ruling upended decades of employment discrimination law and raised serious barriers to future large-scale discrimination cases of every kind.

Employers rejoiced. Others predicted serious setbacks for women and minorities, especially in employment discrimination cases brought under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. That landmark law had opened the way to the use of the class-action lawsuit as a potent weapon for people who could not stand up for their rights on their own.
Two years later, it’s becoming clear just how much the ruling has reshaped the American legal landscape.

The Dukes decision has already been cited more than 1,200 times in rulings by federal and state courts, a figure seen by experts as remarkable. Jury verdicts have been overturned, settlements thrown out, and class actions rejected or decertified, in many instances undoing years of litigation. The rulings have come in every part of the country, in lawsuits involving all types of companies,...
[Click here to see the rest of this post]

Tuesday, November 15, 2011

US Supreme Court, Health Care & Workers' Compensation

The Supreme Court of the United States. Washin...Image via Wikipedia

The winds of change have brought a new health care system to the US. The US Supreme Court  will now have an opportunity to express it's opinion on the validity of the legislation. The new system, that provides additional worker protections, and a prototype of a universal medical care system ,"Libby Care," encompassing workers' compensation claims, reflects changes desperately needed.

Saturday, October 9, 2010

RICO Case Dismissed By Trial Court After US Supreme Court Decision

A Federal District Court in Michigan has dismissed a RICO [Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act] claim against Cassens Transportation Company and several other defendants. This is the third time the case was negatively reviewed by the US District Court in Michigan and follows a landmark decision in the US Supreme Court supporting the RICO action that flowed from an underlying  by a workers' compensation action.

"The Court concludes that Plaintiffs' exclusive remedy for their claim that they were fraudulently denied benefits under the WDCA [Workers' Disability Compensation Act] lies within the exclusive administrative scheme set forth in the WDCA which forcloses their RICO claim."

Brown v Cassens Transportation Company, et al. No. 04-cv-72316, 2010 WL 3842373, Decided Sept. 27, 2010.

Click here to read more about RICO claims and workers' compensation.

For over 3 decades the Law Offices of Jon L. Gelman 1.973.696.7900  jon@gelmans.com have been representing injured workers and their families who have suffered work related accident and injuries.