The Supreme Court appeared divided Monday in two cases in which businesses are trying to make it harder for customers or investors to band together to sue them.
The justices heard arguments in appeals from biotech company Amgen Inc. and cable provider Comcast Corp. that seek to shut down class-action lawsuits against the businesses.
Amgen is fighting securities fraud claims that misstatements about two of its drugs used to treat anemia artificially inflated its stock price. Comcast is facing a lawsuit from customers who say the company's monopoly in parts of the Philadelphia area allowed it to raise prices unfairly.
Last year, the Supreme Court raised the bar for some class-action suits when it sided with Wal-Mart against up to 1.6 million of its female employees who complained of sex discrimination. In the Wal-Mart case, the court said there were too many women in too many jobs at the nation's largest private employer to wrap into one lawsuit.
Class actions increase pressure on businesses to settle suits because of the cost of defending them and the potential for very large judgments.
Connecticut pension funds that sued Amgen said lower courts correctly ruled that the case could move forward as a class action. The issue at the Supreme Court is whether the pension funds have to show at an early stage of the lawsuit that Amgen's claims about the safety and effectiveness of the drugs Aranesp and Epogen affected the stock price.
Several justices indicated they had no problem with the idea that, unlike in the Wal-Mart case, all the Amgen investors were in the same boat and could clear an early hurdle that tripped up the Wal-Mart employees.
Thursday, November 8, 2012
Wednesday, October 17, 2012
Hoboken Products Liability Lawyer
Manufacturers and sellers of defective products may be held responsible for injuries that are caused by their products under the body of law known as products liability law.
A product is essentially anything that is sold for use or consumption, except for services and real estate. A products liability claim can arise if a a product has brought illness or physical injury to the consumer. Industrial machinery and equipment, home repair and recreational products, and motor vehicles are some of the few types of products that may be the subject of products liability litigation. The same is true with regard to food products sold in restaurants and supermarkets, and drug and pharmaceutical products sold over-the-counter and by prescription.
There are several theories of liability in products liability cases. In some instances, the product may have been defectively designed. A design defect in a product could lead to issues such as equipment malfunction and seriously injure a worker or consumer. In other cases, the design of the product may have been appropriate, but the product was defectively manufactured. Yet another possibility is that the product was appropriately designed and manufactured, but did not include sufficient warnings or instructions that could have prevented an injury. Any of these deficiencies may result in a products liability claim.
The law limits the time in which you may bring a products liability claim. Manufacturers are responsible and liable to make products that perform as stated, with a warning label necessary for consumers to be aware of the product. Call today to discuss your case if you are a victim of a defective product. Our experienced Hoboken products liability lawyer can help you. If you want more information on how we can help http://www.reinartzlaw.com/practice-areas/products-liability
A product is essentially anything that is sold for use or consumption, except for services and real estate. A products liability claim can arise if a a product has brought illness or physical injury to the consumer. Industrial machinery and equipment, home repair and recreational products, and motor vehicles are some of the few types of products that may be the subject of products liability litigation. The same is true with regard to food products sold in restaurants and supermarkets, and drug and pharmaceutical products sold over-the-counter and by prescription.
There are several theories of liability in products liability cases. In some instances, the product may have been defectively designed. A design defect in a product could lead to issues such as equipment malfunction and seriously injure a worker or consumer. In other cases, the design of the product may have been appropriate, but the product was defectively manufactured. Yet another possibility is that the product was appropriately designed and manufactured, but did not include sufficient warnings or instructions that could have prevented an injury. Any of these deficiencies may result in a products liability claim.
The law limits the time in which you may bring a products liability claim. Manufacturers are responsible and liable to make products that perform as stated, with a warning label necessary for consumers to be aware of the product. Call today to discuss your case if you are a victim of a defective product. Our experienced Hoboken products liability lawyer can help you. If you want more information on how we can help http://www.reinartzlaw.com/practice-areas/products-liability
Monday, August 6, 2012
NJ court upholds decal law for young drivers
Young drivers in New Jersey will have to continue displaying a red decal on their license plates.
The state Supreme Court upheld "Kyleigh's Law" in a ruling Monday.
In a unanimous opinion, the high court ruled that requiring the decals doesn't violate federal privacy laws or laws against unreasonable search and seizure. An appeals court had ruled similarly last year in a challenge brought by two parents.
The law is named for a New Jersey teenager who was killed in a 2006 crash. It's meant to aid police in enforcing restricted privileges for young drivers.
Opponents say displaying the decals could leave teen drivers vulnerable to predators. But a report last year found only one reported incident in which an underage driver was stopped by someone impersonating a police officer.
The state Supreme Court upheld "Kyleigh's Law" in a ruling Monday.
In a unanimous opinion, the high court ruled that requiring the decals doesn't violate federal privacy laws or laws against unreasonable search and seizure. An appeals court had ruled similarly last year in a challenge brought by two parents.
The law is named for a New Jersey teenager who was killed in a 2006 crash. It's meant to aid police in enforcing restricted privileges for young drivers.
Opponents say displaying the decals could leave teen drivers vulnerable to predators. But a report last year found only one reported incident in which an underage driver was stopped by someone impersonating a police officer.
Friday, June 15, 2012
Florida Construction Law Attorney - Heitman Law Firm, PL.
Our law firm follows the same rules handling your case that you use on the jobsite to build your projects. Our work is Plumb Square and Level. When we say plumb, we mean that we are straight up with you. We evaluate your case and tell you where you stand legally, allowing you to make sound business decisions. Square means that we don’t cut corners in protecting our Client’s legal rights whether in drafting your contracts or handling your construction disputes.
By quality, we mean degree of excellence. Heitman Law Firm practices construction law. Mr. Heitman is an expert in construction law, board certified by the Florida Bar. He is a member of an elite group of board certified construction attorneys. In addition, Mr. Heitman is a Florida Licensed Professional Engineer, with years of experience building real world construction projects. As such, the Firm is extremely well qualified to render its clients high quality legal representation.
Heitman Law Firm has the background, training, and experience to handle every aspect of a construction project. With years of experience, Mr. Heitman has successfully drafted and negotiated multi-million dollar construction contracts and is committed to resolving construction claims on behalf of his clients. Visit www.palmbeachconstructionlaw.org for more information.
By quality, we mean degree of excellence. Heitman Law Firm practices construction law. Mr. Heitman is an expert in construction law, board certified by the Florida Bar. He is a member of an elite group of board certified construction attorneys. In addition, Mr. Heitman is a Florida Licensed Professional Engineer, with years of experience building real world construction projects. As such, the Firm is extremely well qualified to render its clients high quality legal representation.
Heitman Law Firm has the background, training, and experience to handle every aspect of a construction project. With years of experience, Mr. Heitman has successfully drafted and negotiated multi-million dollar construction contracts and is committed to resolving construction claims on behalf of his clients. Visit www.palmbeachconstructionlaw.org for more information.
New York SEC Attorneys - Herskovits Law
Employment claims brought by securities industry participants involve issues unique to the securities industry. Having represented broker-dealers and registered representatives, we have substantial experience with both sides of these disputes and have prosecuted or defended claims for Form U5 expungement, unpaid deferred compensation (including Restricted Stock Units), enforcement of employee forgivable loans (EFL), broker-dealer raiding, unpaid bonuses or commissions, and wrongful termination.
Over the past five years, Robert Herskovits has successfully prosecuted a significant number of EFL cases brought on behalf of Jefferies & Company, Inc. and smaller broker-dealers. As a small law firm, we remain free from many of the conflicts associated with larger firms, and have defended a multitude of EFL cases brought by various broker-dealers. When defending an EFL case, we structure a defense designed to achieve a resolution with a significant discount to the Note's unpaid balance.
Herskovits Law has expertise in both prosecuting and defending claims for securities industry participants involved in issues in the securities industry. Having represented numerous employees, their reputation for effective advocacy by advancing their clients' interests from the outset of each case has been acknowledged in the New York Securities Industry. See www.herskovitslaw.com.
Over the past five years, Robert Herskovits has successfully prosecuted a significant number of EFL cases brought on behalf of Jefferies & Company, Inc. and smaller broker-dealers. As a small law firm, we remain free from many of the conflicts associated with larger firms, and have defended a multitude of EFL cases brought by various broker-dealers. When defending an EFL case, we structure a defense designed to achieve a resolution with a significant discount to the Note's unpaid balance.
Herskovits Law has expertise in both prosecuting and defending claims for securities industry participants involved in issues in the securities industry. Having represented numerous employees, their reputation for effective advocacy by advancing their clients' interests from the outset of each case has been acknowledged in the New York Securities Industry. See www.herskovitslaw.com.
Wednesday, June 13, 2012
High court protects Secret Service agents
The Supreme Court ruled Monday that two Secret Service agents are shielded from a lawsuit filed by a man they arrested after a confrontation with then-Vice President Dick Cheney.
The 8-0 decision comes in a case that began with the arrest of Steven Howards following a chance encounter with Cheney at a shopping center in Colorado in 2006. Howards claimed he was arrested because he expressed his anti-war views.
The agents and the Obama administration asked the court for broad protection against claims of retaliatory arrests. The justices did not grant that wish.
But Justice Clarence Thomas said in his opinion for the court that the agents could not be sued in this instance because of uncertainty about the state of the law concerning such arrests.
The decision reversed a ruling by the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver to allow Howards' lawsuit to go forward.
Howards, of Golden, Colo., was detained by Cheney's security detail after he told Cheney of his opposition to the war in Iraq. Howards also touched Cheney on the shoulder, then denied doing so under questioning. The appeals court said the inconsistency gave the agents reason to arrest Howards.
The 8-0 decision comes in a case that began with the arrest of Steven Howards following a chance encounter with Cheney at a shopping center in Colorado in 2006. Howards claimed he was arrested because he expressed his anti-war views.
The agents and the Obama administration asked the court for broad protection against claims of retaliatory arrests. The justices did not grant that wish.
But Justice Clarence Thomas said in his opinion for the court that the agents could not be sued in this instance because of uncertainty about the state of the law concerning such arrests.
The decision reversed a ruling by the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver to allow Howards' lawsuit to go forward.
Howards, of Golden, Colo., was detained by Cheney's security detail after he told Cheney of his opposition to the war in Iraq. Howards also touched Cheney on the shoulder, then denied doing so under questioning. The appeals court said the inconsistency gave the agents reason to arrest Howards.
Friday, May 25, 2012
Ferrero sets aside $3 million for Nutella U.S. class action
Italian confectionery group Ferrero has agreed to set aside $3 million to settle a class-action lawsuit championed by a Californian mother after she discovered the group's Nutella chocolate spread packed more calories than jam or syrup.
Notices of class action settlements said that Ferrero USA Inc., the group's U.S. division, would pay up to $4 for every jar of Nutella bought in California since August 2009, or bought anywhere else in the United States since January 2008.
The notices posted on nutellaclassactionsettlement.com said the settlement was for $3,050,000 in total.
Ferrero USA also agreed to "modify certain marketing statements about Nutella" and to give more prominence to nutrition labels on Nutella jars, the notices said.
"Ferrero USA continues to stand by its product," a spokeswoman for Ferrero said on Sunday. "We believe that it is in the best interest of the company to resolve these matters, and have reached an agreement with the parties involved."
Notices of class action settlements said that Ferrero USA Inc., the group's U.S. division, would pay up to $4 for every jar of Nutella bought in California since August 2009, or bought anywhere else in the United States since January 2008.
The notices posted on nutellaclassactionsettlement.com said the settlement was for $3,050,000 in total.
Ferrero USA also agreed to "modify certain marketing statements about Nutella" and to give more prominence to nutrition labels on Nutella jars, the notices said.
"Ferrero USA continues to stand by its product," a spokeswoman for Ferrero said on Sunday. "We believe that it is in the best interest of the company to resolve these matters, and have reached an agreement with the parties involved."
Tuesday, March 13, 2012
Cisco challenges Microsoft takeover of Skype in EU
Networking company Cisco said Wednesday that it is challenging
Microsoft's $8.5 billion takeover of Skype at the European Union's top
court to ensure Microsoft won't block other video conferencing services.
Microsoft completed the deal in October shortly after the European Commission, the EU's competition regulator, cleared the takeover. Microsoft Corp. hopes that owning Skype will allow it to better compete with other tech giants including Apple Inc. or Google Inc.
But for Cisco Systems Inc., the world's largest maker of computer networking equipment, the Skype deal creates a serious challenger to its video conferencing systems.
"Cisco does not oppose the merger, but believes the European Commission should have placed conditions that would ensure greater standards-based interoperability," Marthin De Beer, the head of Cisco's video conferencing division, wrote in a blog post.
Video conferencing equipment is a relatively small part of Cisco's overall sales, but it's growing rapidly. Cisco's latest major acquisition was of Tandberg, a Norwegian maker of video conferencing equipment. Cisco spent $3.4 billion for the company in 2010.
Microsoft completed the deal in October shortly after the European Commission, the EU's competition regulator, cleared the takeover. Microsoft Corp. hopes that owning Skype will allow it to better compete with other tech giants including Apple Inc. or Google Inc.
But for Cisco Systems Inc., the world's largest maker of computer networking equipment, the Skype deal creates a serious challenger to its video conferencing systems.
"Cisco does not oppose the merger, but believes the European Commission should have placed conditions that would ensure greater standards-based interoperability," Marthin De Beer, the head of Cisco's video conferencing division, wrote in a blog post.
Video conferencing equipment is a relatively small part of Cisco's overall sales, but it's growing rapidly. Cisco's latest major acquisition was of Tandberg, a Norwegian maker of video conferencing equipment. Cisco spent $3.4 billion for the company in 2010.
Las Vegas, Nevada Litigation Attorneys
Maier Gutierrez Ayon is a Las Vegas, Nevada based law firm committed to representing clients in the areas of personal injury, wrongful death, product liability, medical malpractice, business and real estate litigation, bankruptcy, and employment law.
Firm founders Jason Maier, Joseph Gutierrez and Luis Ayon began their careers at large law firms representing national and international clients in a variety of matters, including personal injury and product liability litigation, business and commercial litigation, contract disputes, real estate litigation, medical malpractice and pharmaceutical litigation, employment litigation, and bankruptcy. With this experience and a track record of success, Maier Gutierrez Ayon has the unique ability to provide you with the personal attention you deserve while offering the diverse, proven legal experience found in a large law firm.
Attorney advertisement. The material and information contained on these pages and on any pages linked from these pages is intended to provide general information only and not legal advice. You should consult with an attorney licensed to practice in your jurisdiction before relying upon any of the information presented here. You are advised that the acts of sending e-mail does not create an attorney-client relationship
Firm founders Jason Maier, Joseph Gutierrez and Luis Ayon began their careers at large law firms representing national and international clients in a variety of matters, including personal injury and product liability litigation, business and commercial litigation, contract disputes, real estate litigation, medical malpractice and pharmaceutical litigation, employment litigation, and bankruptcy. With this experience and a track record of success, Maier Gutierrez Ayon has the unique ability to provide you with the personal attention you deserve while offering the diverse, proven legal experience found in a large law firm.
Attorney advertisement. The material and information contained on these pages and on any pages linked from these pages is intended to provide general information only and not legal advice. You should consult with an attorney licensed to practice in your jurisdiction before relying upon any of the information presented here. You are advised that the acts of sending e-mail does not create an attorney-client relationship
Thursday, March 1, 2012
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP Files Class Action Suit
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP today announced that a class action
has been commenced on behalf of an institutional investor in the United
States District Court for the District of Kansas on behalf of
purchasers of Collective Brands, Inc. common stock during the period
between December 1, 2010 and May 24, 2011.
If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than 60 days from today. If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions concerning this notice or your rights or interests, please contact plaintiff’s counsel, Darren Robbins of Robbins Geller at 800/449-4900 or 619/231-1058, or via e-mail at djr@rgrdlaw.com. If you are a member of this class, you can view a copy of the complaint as filed or join this class action online at http://www.rgrdlaw.com/cases/collectivebrands/. Any member of the putative class may move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or may choose to do nothing and remain an absent class member.
The complaint charges Collective Brands and certain of its officers and directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Collective Brands is the holding company for three lines of business: Payless ShoeSource (“Payless”), Collective Brands Performance + Lifestyle Group (“PLG”), and Collective Licensing. The Company was formerly known as Payless ShoeSource, Inc. and changed its name to Collective Brands in August 2007.
The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants issued materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company’s business and financial results. As a result of defendants’ false statements, Collective Brands stock traded at artificially inflated prices during the Class Period, reaching a high of $23.44 per share on February 18, 2011.
On May 24, 2011, after the market closed, the Company announced its financial results for its first fiscal quarter ended April 30, 2011. The Company reported earnings of $26.4 million or $0.42 diluted earnings per share for the first quarter, which was nearly 50% less than the $0.82 diluted earnings per share expected by analysts. The Company further reported that net sales declined 1.1% to $869.0 million, due in substantial part to the Company’s 7.4% comparable store sales decline in its Payless domestic segment, offset by sales growth of 22.5% in PLG. On this news, Collective Brands stock collapsed $3.06 per share to close at $15.31 per share on May 25, 2011, a one-day decline of nearly 17%.
According to the complaint, the true facts, which were known by defendants but concealed from the investing public during the Class Period, were as follows: (a) the Company’s inventory level for Payless remained at excessively high levels and aging inventory for its Payless segment was a concern; (b) sales at the Company’s flagship Payless stores were significantly worse than expected due to deteriorating customer demand; and (c) the Company was forced to mark down Payless’s bloated inventory at significant discounts, which adversely affected the Company’s margins and financial results for its first quarter.
Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all purchasers of Collective Brands common stock during the Class Period (the “Class”). The plaintiff is represented by Robbins Geller, which has expertise in prosecuting investor class actions and extensive experience in actions involving financial fraud.
http://www.rgrdlaw.com
If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than 60 days from today. If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions concerning this notice or your rights or interests, please contact plaintiff’s counsel, Darren Robbins of Robbins Geller at 800/449-4900 or 619/231-1058, or via e-mail at djr@rgrdlaw.com. If you are a member of this class, you can view a copy of the complaint as filed or join this class action online at http://www.rgrdlaw.com/cases/collectivebrands/. Any member of the putative class may move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or may choose to do nothing and remain an absent class member.
The complaint charges Collective Brands and certain of its officers and directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Collective Brands is the holding company for three lines of business: Payless ShoeSource (“Payless”), Collective Brands Performance + Lifestyle Group (“PLG”), and Collective Licensing. The Company was formerly known as Payless ShoeSource, Inc. and changed its name to Collective Brands in August 2007.
The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants issued materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company’s business and financial results. As a result of defendants’ false statements, Collective Brands stock traded at artificially inflated prices during the Class Period, reaching a high of $23.44 per share on February 18, 2011.
On May 24, 2011, after the market closed, the Company announced its financial results for its first fiscal quarter ended April 30, 2011. The Company reported earnings of $26.4 million or $0.42 diluted earnings per share for the first quarter, which was nearly 50% less than the $0.82 diluted earnings per share expected by analysts. The Company further reported that net sales declined 1.1% to $869.0 million, due in substantial part to the Company’s 7.4% comparable store sales decline in its Payless domestic segment, offset by sales growth of 22.5% in PLG. On this news, Collective Brands stock collapsed $3.06 per share to close at $15.31 per share on May 25, 2011, a one-day decline of nearly 17%.
According to the complaint, the true facts, which were known by defendants but concealed from the investing public during the Class Period, were as follows: (a) the Company’s inventory level for Payless remained at excessively high levels and aging inventory for its Payless segment was a concern; (b) sales at the Company’s flagship Payless stores were significantly worse than expected due to deteriorating customer demand; and (c) the Company was forced to mark down Payless’s bloated inventory at significant discounts, which adversely affected the Company’s margins and financial results for its first quarter.
Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all purchasers of Collective Brands common stock during the Class Period (the “Class”). The plaintiff is represented by Robbins Geller, which has expertise in prosecuting investor class actions and extensive experience in actions involving financial fraud.
http://www.rgrdlaw.com
NY court: Judge can't block $18B Ecuador judgment
A judge overstepped his authority when he tried to ban enforcement
around the world of an $18 billion judgment against Chevron Inc. for
environmental damage in Ecuador, a federal appeals court said Thursday
as it explained why it lifted the ban last year.
The three-judge panel of the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said the judge has authority to block collection if Ecuadorean plaintiffs move against Chevron in New York, but law does not give him authority "to dictate to the entire world which judgments are entitled to respect and which countries' courts are to be treated as international pariahs."
The judgment came last February after nearly two decades of litigation that stemmed from the poisoning of land in the Ecuadorean rainforest while the oil company Texaco was operating an oil consortium from 1972 to 1990 in the Amazon. Texaco became a wholly owned subsidiary of Chevron in 2001.
Chevron obtained an order from U.S. District Judge Lewis A. Kaplan last March blocking Ecuadorean plaintiffs from trying to collect the $18 billion until he could stage a trial to determine if the judgment was obtained fairly.
The three-judge panel of the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said the judge has authority to block collection if Ecuadorean plaintiffs move against Chevron in New York, but law does not give him authority "to dictate to the entire world which judgments are entitled to respect and which countries' courts are to be treated as international pariahs."
The judgment came last February after nearly two decades of litigation that stemmed from the poisoning of land in the Ecuadorean rainforest while the oil company Texaco was operating an oil consortium from 1972 to 1990 in the Amazon. Texaco became a wholly owned subsidiary of Chevron in 2001.
Chevron obtained an order from U.S. District Judge Lewis A. Kaplan last March blocking Ecuadorean plaintiffs from trying to collect the $18 billion until he could stage a trial to determine if the judgment was obtained fairly.
Man gets car ban after 4 children found in trunk
A British court has banned a man from driving for a year after he was
caught traveling with four children in the trunk of his car.
Britain's Press Association news agency said Thursday that police found a total of 11 people in Zoltan Lakatos' Audi A4 when they stopped him in the English city of Leicester last year.
One passenger was in the driver's seat, three adults and two children were squeezed into the back, and officers discovered four more children in the trunk.
The news agency says Lakatos was convicted of endangering his passengers and of driving without insurance earlier this week at Leicester Magistrates' Court. He also was fined 1,325 pounds (about $2,080).
The agency said the 38-year-old was not in court for the ruling.
Britain's Press Association news agency said Thursday that police found a total of 11 people in Zoltan Lakatos' Audi A4 when they stopped him in the English city of Leicester last year.
One passenger was in the driver's seat, three adults and two children were squeezed into the back, and officers discovered four more children in the trunk.
The news agency says Lakatos was convicted of endangering his passengers and of driving without insurance earlier this week at Leicester Magistrates' Court. He also was fined 1,325 pounds (about $2,080).
The agency said the 38-year-old was not in court for the ruling.
Defamation suit filed against pen-named Utah mayor
A Utah mayor who wrote news stories under a false identify is being sued for defamation.
In court papers, Chris Hogan alleges an article by West Valley City Mayor Mike Winder falsely claimed he was accused of extortion and fired from UTOPIA, a fiber-optic network formed by 16 Utah cities.
The lawsuit filed Wednesday in U.S. District Court in Salt Lake City seeks a trial, compensation for lost wages and punitive damages.
Among the lawsuit's 14 defendants is Deseret Digital Media, which published Winder's stories under the alias Richard Burwash.
The company's CEO Clark Gilbert has said company officials "deeply regret" the mayor misrepresented himself.
Winder promoted his city and even quoted himself in stories he wrote.
Winder said on Thursday he disputes Hogan's claims and will defend the lawsuit.
In court papers, Chris Hogan alleges an article by West Valley City Mayor Mike Winder falsely claimed he was accused of extortion and fired from UTOPIA, a fiber-optic network formed by 16 Utah cities.
The lawsuit filed Wednesday in U.S. District Court in Salt Lake City seeks a trial, compensation for lost wages and punitive damages.
Among the lawsuit's 14 defendants is Deseret Digital Media, which published Winder's stories under the alias Richard Burwash.
The company's CEO Clark Gilbert has said company officials "deeply regret" the mayor misrepresented himself.
Winder promoted his city and even quoted himself in stories he wrote.
Winder said on Thursday he disputes Hogan's claims and will defend the lawsuit.
Court denies new trial in Wis. mill worker death
A Wisconsin appeals court on Thursday denied the request for a new trial made by a man convicted in the grisly 1992 killing of a Green Bay paper mill worker.
Rey Moore, 65, was one of six men convicted of killing their co-worker Tom Monfils. His body was found in a pulp vat at the then-James River Corp. plant in Green Bay with a weight tied around his neck.
Moore's attorney, Byron Lichstein, of the Wisconsin Innocence Project, argued that the conviction should be overturned because of questionable testimony by prison inmate James Gilliam.
He had testified in 1995 that Moore told him he participated in a group beating of Monfils at the mill. But Gilliam later recanted and said Moore told him he actually tried to prevent the beating.
That change in Gilliam's testimony was not allowed at the trial. Lichstein argued that Moore deserved a new trial because that testimony would exonerate him.
Rey Moore, 65, was one of six men convicted of killing their co-worker Tom Monfils. His body was found in a pulp vat at the then-James River Corp. plant in Green Bay with a weight tied around his neck.
Moore's attorney, Byron Lichstein, of the Wisconsin Innocence Project, argued that the conviction should be overturned because of questionable testimony by prison inmate James Gilliam.
He had testified in 1995 that Moore told him he participated in a group beating of Monfils at the mill. But Gilliam later recanted and said Moore told him he actually tried to prevent the beating.
That change in Gilliam's testimony was not allowed at the trial. Lichstein argued that Moore deserved a new trial because that testimony would exonerate him.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)