GA: Voter ID Law Goes to Court

Image by elmada via FlickrGeorgia’s voter photo ID law went before the state Supreme Court Tuesday.

The 2005 law requires voters present photo identification before casting their ballots, but waives that requirement for absentee ballots.

In legal briefs, attorneys for the state’s Democratic party argued nowhere in Georgia’s constitution is the right to vote contingent on the possession of an approved form of photo ID. They also say the law has a discriminatory effect on black voters.

A state court upheld the photo ID law earlier this year. The Democratic party is appealling the decision..

Twenty six other states require voters show an ID to vote, but only eight of those ask for a photo identification.

Elections law expert DanTokaji at Ohio State University says Georgia law is even more stringent:

“Unlike almost all other states, Georgia requires a government-issued photo identification, something like a driver’s license, in order to vote and to have one’s vote counted.”

Tokaji says Indiana is the only other state with the stricter requirement and it’s been upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court. Georgia's voter photo ID law was also upheld in a federal court in 2009 after voters sued the state claiming it violated the US Constitution.

http://www.gpb.org/news/2010/09/06/voter-id-law-goes-to-court

GA Town Passes Anti Sagging Pants Law

f you’re heading to Dublin, Georgia, you’d better pull up your pants. Or, at least, make sure you don’t have your underwear on display for all the world to see. Dublin, Georgia, is the latest town to pass an anti-sagging pants ordinance, which criminalizes visible boxer shorts. The ordinance defines sagging as wearing your pants “more than three inches below the top of the hips exposing the skin or undergarments.” Get your pants off the ground, fellas!

Dublin’s mayor, Phil Best, is in favor of the ordinance and promises to enforce it. “Maybe we’ll gain maybe a little more mutual respect for each other and realize that everybody doesn’t want to see your underwear,” said Best of the new law. Volunteers who work with young black men, like Jean Wolfe, fear that the laws could lead to racial profiling, since, as she says, “They’re the ones wearing the saggy baggy pants.”

She must not’ve spent any time with young white men recently. These days, sagging pants afflicts all races. Both blacks and whites walk around looking like they’re nursing a full diaper these days. I tend to wear my pants lower, but some people just abuse the privilege.

Source.

Grandmother Waits Nearly Three Years for a Jury Decision

This news from Lance Cooper:

Ramona Roper was a 77 year old woman grandmother who worked full-time as the City Clerk for the City of Jasper. She worked in this position for 30 years, and lived on her own and had a very active lifestyle before her life changed for the worse.

The case involved a 1994 Dodge Intrepid. It had a defective gear shift assembly which caused it to move out of park when the keys were out of the ignition. Chrysler recalled the Intrepid in 2004. Ramona Roper, the car’s owner, took the car into Jasper Jeep to have the recall work done on three separate occasions between 2004 and 2007. The first two times the recall part was not in. The third time, the Jasper Jeep technician did not perform the recall work properly.

In November 2007, Ramona was dropping off some food for her grandchildren. Her three year old granddaughter reached into the center console of the car to pick up a drink and put her hand on the gear shifter causing it to shift out of park. Ramona=s driver side door knocked her over and the car ran her over. She suffered a fractured pelvis. She was hospitalized for one week and was in a nursing home for approximately 6 weeks for recovery.

She returned to work after the incident, but had to retire at the end of 2008 because she was no longer physically able to do her job.

The case took three and a half days to present. We put our evidence up in a short time. We made the decision not to ask the jury for an amount in opening statement. We presented evidence of approximately $60,000 in medical expenses and we argued that, even though she was 74 at the time of the incident, she would have worked for the foreseeable future and asked for about $100,000 in future lost wages.

For more information, contact:

The Cooper Firm

701 Whitlock Avenue

Suite J-43

Marietta, GA 30064

Telephone: (770) 427-5588

Facsimile: (770) 427-0010

Toll Free: (800) 317-2021

Website: TheCooperFirm.net

In FL: Fooling the Voters?

Image by State Library and Archives of Florida via Flickr

It's not nice to fool the voters. Our state Legislature doesn't get that. Fortunately, the Florida Supreme Court does.

This week the court threw three proposed state constitutional amendments off the November ballot. All came from the Legislature and all suffered from the same defect: Deceptive or misleading ballot language.

One amendment was a desperate attempt to continue rigging legislative and congressional district lines to suit the ambitions of powerful legislators and keep the ruling party in control.

"While purporting to create and impose standards upon the Legislature in redistricting, the amendment actually eliminates actual standards and replaces them with discretionary considerations," the court's ruling noted.

Another amendment was a grandstanding measure opposing federal health care reform that purported to "ensure access to health care services without waiting lists ..." It did nothing of the sort. The third amendment offered new property tax breaks, but the ballot language forgot to mention that it only applied to homes bought after Jan. 1, 2010.

Lawmakers think nothing of spinning fantasy to suit their own ends. Fortunately, Supreme Court justices insist on truth in ballot language.

http://www.gainesville.com/article/20100903/OPINION01/9031000/1017

Video that will change the way you think: Nestlehutt

And the opinion here:

From the opinion:

Because the amount of damages sustained by a plaintiff is ordinarily an issue of fact, this has been the rule from the beginning of trial by jury. See Charles T. McCormick, Handbook
on the Law of Damages § 6, p. 24 (1935).

The determination of damages rests “‘peculiarly within the province of the jury.’” (Citation omitted.) Dimick v. Schiedt, 293 U. S. 474, 480 (3) (55 SC 296, 79 LE 603) (1935).

We conclude that the noneconomic damages caps in OCGA § 51-13-1 violate the right to a jury trial as guaranteed under the Georgia Constitution.8

Consumer Financial Protection Bureau Will Protect Americans from Abusive Forced Arbitrations

Image via WikipediaThe President has signed the new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), under the just-passed Wall Street Reform Act, to help limit the use of abusive forced arbitration clauses in financial contracts.

“The new CFPB will help address the abusive forced arbitration practices used by banks against consumers,” said American Association for Justice President Gibson Vance. “Congress must now pass the Arbitration Fairness Act to ensure these predatory clauses are banned once and for all.”

The new law addresses forced arbitration by:

• Giving the CFPB power to limit forced arbitration in financial service contracts if the bureau determines, after conducting a study, it is in the best interest of the public and for consumer protection to do so;
• providing the Securities and Exchange Commission the authority to limit forced arbitration in investment contracts, a practice that has been found to be grossly unfair to investors; and
• including a statutory ban on forced arbitration in residential mortgage agreements.

Two other bills have been introduced in Congress to stem the abusive practice of forced arbitration. The bipartisan Arbitration Fairness Act (S. 931 / H.R. 1020), sponsored by Sen. Russ Feingold (D-Wis.) and Rep. Hank Johnson (D-Ga.), would ensure that the decision to arbitrate is made voluntarily and after a dispute has arisen, so corporations cannot manipulate the arbitration system in their favor at the expense of consumers and employees. The bipartisan Fairness in Nursing Home Arbitration Act (S. 512 / H.R. 1237), sponsored by Sen. Herb Kohl (D-Wis.) and Rep. Linda Sanchez (D-Calif.), would eliminate forced arbitration clauses in nursing home contracts.

House Energy and Commerce Committee Approves Legislation to Help Hold Foreign Manufacturers Accountable for Safety

Image via Wikipedia Legislation reported out of the U.S. House Energy and Commerce Committee today will make it easier to hold foreign manufacturers accountable for the safety of their products in the U.S. legal system.

Today, foreign manufacturers are able to sell their products in the U.S. while skirting U.S. laws and safety standards. This is because bringing a case against a foreign manufacturer requires translating the papers into the language of the native country and then serving legal papers in the foreign country, adding time and expense to the legal process.

The Foreign Manufacturers Legal Accountability Act (S. 1606 / H.R.4678), sponsored by Rep. Betty Sutton (D-OH) and Sens. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) and Jeff Sessions (R-AL), will level the playing field between U.S. manufacturers and foreign manufacturers while helping ensure foreign products sold in the U.S. are safe.

“We are one step closer to putting foreign corporations on notice that their products must meet our standards and be subject to our legal system,” said American Association for Justice President Gibson Vance. “Not only will American businesses be on a level playing field with foreign corporations, but consumers will now have the added security that our civil justice system offers.”

The legislation will require manufacturers to have an “agent” located in at least one state where the company does business that would accept service of process for any civil or regulatory claims. Foreign companies would then consent to state and federal jurisdiction, holding the manufacturer accountable to U.S. judicial standards.

Read more here.

Follow us on Twitter

Easy to find us.

http://twitter.com/GATrialLawyers

Darryl Samples Gets Justice

Image via Wikipedia

Darryl Samples v. John Blay, State Court.

This is the first of an occasional series of stories detailing justice in GA.
We asked a consumer lawyer to talk about a recent case. Here you go:Call Mark Link anytime, www.linksmithpc.com

1.Tell us about your client:

Have you ever heard someone talk about when they "knew" they'd found the person that they would marry? For Darryl Samples that moment happen on his first date with his wife. They went for motorcycle ride and on that first date a common love for riding blossomed in to a happy marriage. Together they planned Darryl's approaching retirement that would include a ride across the country. He'd worked hard his whole life and this trip with the love of his life would be his reward.

2.What happened?

Darryl's pride and joy was his newly restored Harley-Davidson. One beautiful morning he decided it was time to show his co-workers his bike. It was his first time back out on it after the restoration. The guys loved it. He was as proud as could be. On his way home after work he thought about the ride he and his wife would take that night and couldn't wait to share how much his co-workers loved the restoration. Right as you get up to Peachtree Parkway on Spaulding Drive the traffic tends to back up a little, so Darryl did what a lot of folks do, he slide over in to the center turn lane to enter the turn lane at the intersection. Just then a car made a left hand turn across the lanes and directly in to Darryl. The collision threw him from the Harley and severely broke his ankle. Darryl was taken to the hospital where he underwent emergency surgery to stabilize his crushed ankle. He was discharged from the hospital with $72,000 in medical bills, a wrecked bike, and a long home confinement ahead of him while he healed.

3.Why did you file?

At first Darryl and his wife thought because there was insurance everything would be taken care of. The person who hit him had very little insurance, which was not enough to cover his medical expenses. He made a claim against his own underinsurance carrier, since he had paid for that coverage, and they denied him, leaving him frustrated and devastated. Because the insurance company was unreasonable, he was forced to bring them to court to resolve their dispute.

4.What was the result?

After Darryl and his wife filed suit, there was a mediation between the Samples and the insurance company, State Farm. The insurance company got to meet the Samples, see the impact the injuries had, and review all of the $72,000 worth of medical bills. They offered $2500 to settle the case. Quite simply they thought the whole thing was Darryl's fault. For the Samples it was like they were in a brand new accident. They decided to go to trial.

The case was tried in Gwinnett State Court in front of Judge Mock. It took about a day and half from opening statement to the jury's verdict. During the trial Darryl testified about a lot of things, but he also testified about how he felt that he did in fact share some of the blame for how the accident happened. It wasn't easy to do, to tell a group of strangers that you had a hand in what happened to you, but it was the truth, and that's the kind of guy Darryl is. The Defendant testified too, and in the end stuck to their guns that it was all Darryl's fault.

The jury awarded $416,000 in damages to Darryl, but because they too decided that both parties were at fault in the accident, the split that blame 60% to the Defendant and 40% to Darryl. As a result, Darryl only received 60% of the award, or $250,000.

5.Talk to us about the case:

Every day we make little decisions that can have great impact over the rest of our lives. For Darryl, who will never be able to ride his Harley again, his life was forever changed by the decision that he made on Spaulding Drive that day. He accepted responsibility for his actions and believed that the insurance company should have done the same.

Together Darryl and his wife are building a new plan for the future, and are thankful that they trusted the people from their community who served on the jury that week.

FBI and Marines: No Hate Crime Charge

Two U.S. Marines accused of knocking a gay Savannah man unconscious will face only misdemeanor charges in the attack after the Justice Department declined to prosecute them for hate crimes, authorities said Wednesday.

Savannah-Chatham County police arrested the Marines on June 12 after finding 27-year-old Kieran Daly unconscious on a downtown sidewalk. Witnesses said the Marines got upset because they thought Daly winked at them and attacked him as he tried to walk away.

The FBI launched a preliminary investigation into whether the attack warranted charges as a federal hate crime. Stephen Emmett, spokesman for the FBI in Atlanta, said Wednesday the Justice Department opted against pursuing hate-crime charges after reviewing the case.

"The matter now rests with local authorities," Emmett said.

The Marines accused of attacking Daly — Cpl. Keil Joseph Cronauer, 22, and Lance Cpl. Christopher Charles Stanzel, 23, — have been charged with misdemeanor battery in state court. A judge is scheduled to hear the case Sept. 9
http://www.ajc.com/news/fbi-marines-wont-be-604978.html
Source: