|
|
|
Court reaffirms BP is liable in Gulf oil spill
Headline News |
2014/11/07 10:57
|
A federal appeals court panel has reaffirmed its ruling that BP is liable for federal Clean Water Act damages stemming from the 2010 Gulf of Mexico oil spill, the latest loss for the oil giant as it fights court decisions that could ultimately bring $18 billion in penalties.
The three-judge panel of the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals rejected arguments that there were errors in its June 4 ruling on BP's Clean Water Act liability. The ruling released Wednesday night is not the final say from the court. BP and its minority partner in the Macondo well, Anadarko Petroleum Corp., have a request pending for the full 15-member court to reconsider the issue.
The June order and Wednesday's follow-up were issued by Judges Fortunato Benavides, Carolyn Dineen King and James Dennis. They upheld U.S. District Judge Carl Barbier's ruling holding the well owners are liable.
BP and Anadarko had argued they were not liable because equipment failure on the leased rig Deepwater Horizon caused the April 2010 disaster. An explosion on the rig killed 11 workers and sent millions of gallons of oil spewing into the Gulf in what became the nation's worst offshore oil disaster.
Barbier has also ruled that BP was "grossly negligent" in the disaster. BP has asked Barbier to reconsider that finding, which, if it stands, would be a factor in whether the water act penalties for the company reach an estimated $18 billion.
Under the Clean Water Act, a polluter can be forced to pay from $1,100 to $4,300 per barrel of spilled oil. The higher limit applies if the company is found grossly negligent — as BP was in Barbier's ruling. But penalties can be assessed at lower amounts.
Government experts estimated that 4.2 million barrels spilled into the Gulf. BP has urged Barbier to use an estimate of 2.45 million barrels in calculating any Clean Water Act penalties.
Barbier has scheduled a trial in January to help decide how much BP owes in federal Clean Water Act penalties. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Health overhaul's subsidies at Supreme Court
Headline News |
2014/10/30 09:57
|
Supreme Court justices have their first chance this week to decide whether they have the appetite for another major fight over President Barack Obama's health care law.
Some of the same players who mounted the first failed effort to kill the law altogether now want the justices to rule that subsidies that help millions of low- and middle-income people afford their premiums under the law are illegal.
The challengers are appealing a unanimous ruling of a three-judge panel of the federal appeals court in Richmond, Virginia, that upheld Internal Revenue Service regulations that allow health-insurance tax credits under the Affordable Care Act for consumers in all 50 states. The appeal is on the agenda for the justices' private conference on Friday, and word of their action could come as early as Monday.
The fight over subsidies is part of a long-running political and legal campaign to overturn Obama's signature domestic legislation by Republicans and other opponents of the law. Republican candidates have relentlessly attacked Democrats who voted for it, and the partisanship has continued on the federal bench. Every judge who has voted to strike down the subsidies was appointed by a Republican president.
The appeal has arrived at the Supreme Court at a curious time; there is no conflicting appeals court ruling that the justices often say is a virtual requirement for them to take on an issue. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg cited that practice, for example, as a reason she and her colleagues decided not to take on the same-sex marriage issue. And in the gay marriage cases, both sides were urging the court to step in. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Court hears dispute over pay for security checks
Headline News |
2014/10/13 16:34
|
Workers who fill customer orders for Internet retailer Amazon might be out of luck in their quest to be paid for time they spend going through security checkpoints each day.
Several Supreme Court justices expressed doubts Wednesday during arguments over whether federal law entitles workers to compensation for security measures to prevent employee theft.
The case is being watched closely by business groups concerned that employers could be liable for billions of dollars in retroactive pay for security check procedures that have become routine in retail and other industries.
Workers have battled for decades with employers over what tasks they should or shouldn't be paid for. The Supreme Court has previously ruled that workers must be paid for time putting on protective gear for work, but not for time waiting to take it off. And the court has found that butchers deserve to be paid for time sharpening their knives, which are essential to working at a meatpacking plant.
The latest dispute involves two former workers at a Nevada warehouse who say their employer, Integrity Staffing Solutions, Inc., made them to wait up to 25 minutes in security lines at the end of every shift. Integrity provides staffers for Amazon warehouses.
Amazon spokeswoman Kelly Cheeseman says the company's data shows that warehouse employees walk through security screenings "with little or no wait."
A federal appeals court ruled last year that the workers, Jesse Busk and Laurie Castro, deserved to be paid because the anti-theft screenings were necessary to the primary work performed by warehouse workers and it was done for the employer's benefit. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Case of American jailed in Cuba back in US court
Headline News |
2014/09/22 14:57
|
An attorney for a Maryland man who has spent over four years jailed in Cuba argued before a federal appeals court that his client should be allowed to sue the U.S. government over his imprisonment.
An attorney for Alan Gross, who was a government subcontractor when he was detained in Cuba in 2009, appeared Friday before a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.
A lower court judge dismissed Gross' lawsuit against the government in 2013, but Gross' lawyers appealed.
Gross was arrested while setting up Internet in Cuba as part of a project for the government's U.S. Agency for International Development. Cuba considers USAID's programs illegal attempts by the U.S. to undermine its government and Gross was given a 15-year prison sentence. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Guilty plea in California meat recall case
Headline News |
2014/08/27 12:44
|
A co-owner of a Northern California slaughterhouse accused of processing cows with cancer has pleaded guilty to a criminal charge.
The San Francisco Chronicle reports that 77-year-old Robert Singleton, co-owner of Petaluma-based Rancho Feeding Corp., entered the plea on Friday to aiding and abetting in the distribution of adulterated, misbranded and uninspected meat. He has agreed to work with prosecutors who have filed charges against the company's other owner, Jesse Amaral Jr., and two employees, Eugene Corda and Felix Cabrera.
They have pleaded not guilty.
Prosecutors say the company slaughtered dozens of cows with skin cancer of the eye, and plant workers swapped the heads of diseased cattle with those of healthy cows.
Operations were halted in February after a series of recalls, including one for 8.7 million pounds of beef. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ala court upholds generic drug decision
Headline News |
2014/08/18 14:10
|
The Alabama Supreme Court is standing by a decision that business sees as a defeat.
The court on Friday issued an opinion that mostly parallels its ruling last year in a generic drug case.
A divided court says the original decision isn't as broad as some are claiming. But a majority stuck by a 2013 decision saying a brand-name drugmaker can be held responsible by someone who took a generic medication made by a different company.
The Business Council of Alabama says it's disappointed. So is Wyeth, the drug manufacturer sued by Danny and Vicki Weeks over the man's use of a generic form of the brand-name medicine Reglan.
The Weeks filed suit in federal court, and a judge asked the Supreme Court to clarify state law. |
|
|
|
|
|
Legal News RSS Feed
