USLegal Reporter

The families who lost loved ones and those who were injured during the Virginia Tech killings will have another week to consider the proposed settlement by the state of Virginia. Instead of having to respond to the settlement by March 31, 2008, the deadline has been extended for the families and victims to April 7, 2008.

Under the settlement, the families of the persons who were murdered would receive $100,000. For those injured but not killed in the shootings, $800,000 would be available, but no individual could receive more than $100,000. Both the families of the murdered and injured persons would be compensated for medical and counseling expenses and would be given the opportunity to obtain additional money from a hardship fund of $1.75 million.

Families and individuals who accept the settlement will be prohibited from bringing lawsuits against the state and the university.

Source: http://news.findlaw.com/ap/other/1110//03-28-2008/20080328150505_07.html

A former Starbucks employee in Minnesota filed a class-action lawsuit against the coffee corporation on Thursday. The lawsuit alleges Starbucks violated a state law by denying its employees full gratuities.

Earlier this week, a Massachusetts man who worked as a coffee bar server for Starbucks also filed a lawsuit against the corporation over tips. Hernan Matomoros claims he was required to share tips with his supervisors. His attorney alleges the practice was a violation a state law that “prohibits managerial employees from sharing tips reserved for waiters and other employees who can legally be paid below the minimum wage.” Matamoros is seeking to have the case certified as a class-action lawsuit.

Last week, a California judge ordered Starbucks to pay baristas in that state more than $100 million in back tips and interest in a related case which received class-action status. Starbucks says it will appeal the California ruling.

Sources: http://www.timesargus.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080328/NEWS02/803280366,

http://biz.yahoo.com/iw/080327/0380628.html
 

The Nebraska Legislature Tuesday rejected legislation to ban the state’s death penalty and replace it with life imprisonment without parole. The Nebraska Supreme Court ruled in February that the use of the electric chair constituted cruel and unusual punishment under the state’s constitution. Nebraska’s only method of execution is the electric chair.

Jon Brunning, the state attorney general, filed a motion for rehearing asking the court to reconsider its ruling against the electric chair and may appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court. Meanwhile, Nebraska’s governor, Dave Heineman, is urging the legislature to establish a new method of execution that does not violate the constitution.

Source: http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/paperchase/2008/03/nebraska-legislature-rejects-death.php 

The 2nd Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals Tuesday overturned New York legislation passed after an incident where passengers were on board a delayed plane for ten hours at Kennedy International Airport last year. The Airline Passenger Bill of Rights required airlines to provide necessities, such as food, water, sanitary restrooms and fresh air to passengers aboard significantly delayed flights.

The Air Transport Association of America argued against the law claiming only the federal government has the authority to regulate airline services. The court held that the federal Airline Deregulation Act, which prohibits states from regulating the pricing, routes and services of airlines, preempts state law.

Source: http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/paperchase/2008/03/federal-appeals-court-strikes-down-new.php

The state of Virginia is proposing a settlement for the families who lost loved ones in the Virginia Tech killings in order to prevent litigation against the state and/or the university. The settlement offer includes $100,000 for the families of the 32 individuals who were murdered and medical and counseling expenses for those families and for the other victims who survived the massacre.

If the families accept the settlement by March 31, which will also allow them to question the governor and school officials regarding the murders, they will be prohibited from bringing lawsuits.

Source: http://www6.lexisnexis.com/publisher/EndUser?Action=UserDisplayFullDocument&orgId=607&docId=l:l:764994001&topicId=12755&source=undefined&start=2&topics=single

The 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals today dismissed a lawsuit pertaining to the Florida Primary.

Victor DiMaio, a Democrat from Florida, filed the suit in 2007. He claimed the Democratic National Committee disenfranchised Florida voters by its decision to strip the state of  delegates to its national convention.

The DNC has said neither Florida nor Michigan will be able to seat delegates to its convention this year because the states violated rules by moving up their primaries.

Source: http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5igrYLRrHG3P6lIbs2E7pSH0bxhvgD8VHTE300

The United States Supreme Court this week heard arguments in a case which strikes at the heart of the Second Amendment and citizens right to be arms. At issue is a law in the District of Columbia which bans an individual’s right to carry private hand guns that were not registered as of 1976.

Dick Anthony Heller is a security guard who sued the District after he was not allowed to register and keep a hand gun in his home. DC’s law is the strictest in the nation. 

A federal appeals court has sided with Heller finding the law unconstitutional. A Supreme Court ruling on the matter is expected soon.

The last Supreme Court ruling on the Second Amendment was in May of 1939. 

Source: http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1723821,00.html

 

The U.S. Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals Monday upheld a decision by a U.S. District Judge to block a Minnesota law that would fine minors under the age of 17 when purchasing or renting video games with adult ratings. The state argued that minors do not have a First Amendment right to watch violent video games. The court referenced biblical and literary violence as having constitutional protection and rejected the $25 fines as an unconstitutional restriction on free speech.

The ruling is similar to a previous ruling by the same court in 2003 blocking a Missouri law and giving violent video games First Amendment protection. Courts in other states, including California, Illinois, Louisiana and Michigan have also enjoined the enforcement of similar laws.

Source: http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/paperchase/2008/03/federal-appeals-court-rules-minnesota.php

The US House of Representatives today approved legislation which requires more judicial supervision over electronic surveillance. The bill does not include telecom immunity which had been demanded by President Bush. Bush had hoped the measure would give telecommunications companies retroactive immunity for cooperating with the government in the past on warrantless wiretappings.

Telecommunications companies presently face more than 40 lawsuits which allege they have breached customers’ privacy rights.  

Also key in the legislation is that it now restores the power of the federal courts to approve wiretapping warrants. It also authorizes federal inspectors to investigate the administration’s warrantless surveillance efforts.

Source: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/14/AR2008031400803.html?hpid=topnews

The U.S. House of Representatives Tuesday issued a proposal statement in an effort to compromise differences between the House, Senate and Bush Administration regarding the inclusion of legal immunity for telecommunication companies who participated in warrantless government surveillance in legislation designed to update the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.

The proposal does not offer retroactive immunity from legal prosecution for such companies, but allows the companies to privately present evidence without the plaintiffs of the approximately 40 pending lawsuits being present. This private review is intended to satisfy the administration’s concern that the companies cannot adequately defend themselves in the lawsuits without the disclosure of classified information that might threaten the nation’s safety.

The administration issued a responding statement expressing its concern over the proposal and reiterating its position that full immunity should be included in the legislation. The House will likely vote on the proposed legislation soon.

Source: http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/paperchase/2008/03/us-house-leaders-propose-compromise-on.php