Clearwater, St. Petersburg, Tampa, Personal Injury Attorney, James W. Dodson talks about what to do when faced with a pre-injury release form. Many parents sign releases unknowing of the danger they might face with their children. Parents commonly face this dilemma: your child wants to participate in some activity which requires an admission fee and the parent to sign a release of liability. Should you do it? Are such releases valid in Florida? A recent decision by the Florida Supreme Court has appeared to settle the issue. The case involved a custodial parent, whose 14-year-old son wanted to ride an ATV at a commercial motorsports park. The father signed, on his son’s behalf, a release and waiver of liability, assumption of risk and indemnity agreement, and his son was allowed to ride the ATV. While attempting a jump, the boy lost control of the ATV and he was ejected. He died. The boy’s mother was not aware her son was participating in the activity. After the boy’s death, an estate was opened and a personal representative was appointed who brought suit for wrongful death against the sports facility.
In defending the lawsuit, the sports facility raised the release documents signed by the boy’s father as a defense against the claim. The trial court ruled the release was valid and binding and barred the lawsuit by the child’s estate. Resolving the issue presented a conflict between a parent’s right to raise their children and the state’s right to protect children. The Florida Supreme Court recognized the authority of parents to make decisions for their children, but noted that authority is not unlimited. 15,000 in Florida. The court found public policy cannot allow parents to execute pre-injury releases on behalf of minor children. It found a parent, who decides to execute a pre-injury release on behalf of a minor child is not protecting the interests of the child, but the interest of the activity provider. Business owners need to focus on providing a safe environment, not protecting their own interest without regard to safety. Consequently, the court reversed the trial court and reinstated a lawsuit brought by the child’s estate. Note this case involved commercial activities, not purely voluntary activities such as at school or church. The opinion of the Florida Supreme Court in Kirton vs. Jordan Fields may be found that 33 Fla.
Gaughn’s order “seeks to eviscerate the First Amendment,” according to the motion filed Friday by seven media outlets, including the Chicago Sun-Times. “The public and press have effectively been stripped of their right to access and inspect the judicial documents filed in a criminal prosecution of high public interest,” the motion states. Under Gaughn’s order, filings in the case are kept sealed in his courtroom rather than in the clerk’s office, preventing the public or press from viewing them as they can for most other cases. Additionally, Van Dyke’s attorneys and prosecutors are prevented from discussing the case publicly. “This goes far beyond what is necessary to protect the important interest of Defendant’s fair trial rights, or any other potentially compelling interests here,” the press lawyers wrote in Friday’s motion. ] intervention is clear. The importance of this case to the community cannot be overstated. Such “decorum orders” — Gaughan chastises attorneys who refer to them as “gag orders” — are somewhat exceptional at the Leighton Criminal Courthouse, but Gaughan has made them a hallmark of his handling of high-profile cases. Hearings in the Van Dyke case also almost always begin with Gaughan bringing the attorneys in the case into his chambers for an “informal case management conference,” off-the-record sessions which can last an hour or more. When attorneys return to the courtroom, Gaughan appoints one of the attorneys who was in chambers to read what amounts to brief meeting minutes into the record.
The American Tort Reform Association has released its annual list of Judicial Hellholes and, once again, Cook County is prominently featured. The catchy name and scary graphics almost guarantee press coverage and strong reaction. The report hasn’t made a big splash in the Chicago papers as of yet, but then again, the report was just released this week. Actually, Cook County’s rating slipped a little in the current report. In ATRA’s 2009 ratings, Cook County was the third worst jurisdiction in the country. This year, we were no better, or worse, than fifth. ATRA blames judges for making jurisdictions into “hellholes.” According to this year’s report (p. The report goes on to cite some “tricks of the trade” of “Judicial Hellhole” jurists (pp. Chicago area since 1987. Over time, Solis, a father of three, developed bronchiolitis obliterans, a rare respiratory disease that has destroyed 75 percent of his lungs, leaving him with the minimum lung capacity a person needs to live. ] butter its flavor. Studies have shown that the heated vapors of the chemical diacetyl lead to a breakdown of the airway branches deep in the lungs. The lung scarring is irreversible and can be fatal.
This post looks at submissions by Helen Mountfield QC on Day 4 of the Brexit hearing in the Supreme Court. Helen Mountfield is referred to in this post as HM. HM began by saying that her clients were a group of British citizens and one Gibraltarian who would be significantly affected by a decision to leave the EU. Their involvement in the litigation had been “crowdfunded” by many people making small donations. This case involved a long standing constitutional principle. The question of law was whether the intended act of the appellant to notify the EU would be lawful in the absence of statutory authority. The relief sought was that the Supreme Court uphold the High Court’s declaration. Mr Eadie had invited the court to find that the appellant could trigger Art 50 using prerogative even though that would alter domestic law. That was was based on a false assumption that the foreign affairs prerogative extends to permitting the government to dispense with domestic law.
The appellant invited the court to start the analysis at the wrong point – assume there is a prerogative and ask whether it has been abrogated. This bypassed the prior question of what limits, if any, apply to the prerogative power to make and unmake treaties. Can the power be used to alter domestic law (pg 63). If it does not allow that then no question of abrogation arises. HM’s submissions were to be in two stages. First – address the extent of the treaty prerogative and secondly, see whether triggering Art 50 would in fact change domestic law and remove EU law rights contrary to the prohibition on dispensing with law. HM argued that it would have that effect because the EU law rights are also domestic law rights and were not contingent on the exercise of the prerogative. Professor Finnis was wrong to say that the ECA72 was no more than a “vessel” allowing Ministers to cut off the source.
The government has power to enter into and withdraw from treaties – subject to the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010 (CRAG). The dispute in the case concerned the extent of that power. Government claims an untrammelled power whereas HM argued that the power could not be used to alter domestic law – whether common law or statute. HM said that the appellant confused two different concepts. One is that the prerogative power to affect treaty rights exists. HM then took the court through the case law – pages 70 to 75. This is not repeated here. HM argued that there was a strong line of authority to support the orthodox view that the executive may not, by exercise of its foreign policy powers, vary domestic law or to remove rights. HM then proceeded to highlight the principal authorities which are also in the written case. This is at Transcript pages 76 to 84 and is not repeated here. The analysis showed that there was no authority in support of the government’s proposition that the prerogative power extended to altering domestic law. EU law was part of domestic law because Parliament so willed. This was supported by an observation of Lord Mance in Pham (para 80) and by Lord Reed in HS2. The European Union Act 2011 section 18 had a declaratory effect – that EU law has effect in the UK because Parliament said so. HM accepted the ambulatory nature of the ECA72 section 2(1) – “from time to time” – but not in the way suggested by the government. HM submitted that there would be serious consequences if the appellant was right (pages 91-92). The appellant would be able to sweep away a whole swathe of domestic law rights. HM closed he submissions with two final points. Whether the 2015 Act could in some way revive or legitimise the use of prerogative if it existed – put into abeyance by the ECA72 and subsequent legislation. This point would only arise if HM was wrong on the extent of the prerogative.
The Supreme Court last week turned down an appeal from a British woman sentenced to die for a Harris County murder-kidnapping, moving the case one step closer to a possible execution date. Linda Carty was sent to death row in 2001 after she was convicted of masterminding a plot to murder her 20-year-old neighbor and steal the woman’s baby in order to save her own common-law marriage. In the years since the killing of Joana Rodriguez, Carty has consistently professed her innocence, insisting she was railroaded by prosecutors who failed to turn over evidence and coerced witnesses to win a conviction. The now 60-year-old had lived in the Houston area for more than a decade at the time of the slaying, but was born on St. Kitts. At the time, the Caribbean island was a British protectorate, so Carty holds British citizenship – a fact that’s brought her case celebrity attention, spawned a documentary film and landed her on the front pages of papers in the U.K. 1,000 and kidnap the mother and her 3-day-old child at gunpoint.
Afterward, authorities found Rodriguez asphyxiated, bound and gagged, in the trunk of a car linked to Carty. Using witness statement, phone records and evidence from cars at the crime scene, Harris County prosecutors persuaded a jury to find her guilty and vote for a death sentence. For the past 16 years, the now-grandmother has been fighting her conviction. Later, a Texas state court decided that prosecutors had failed to hand over potentially exculpatory evidence and neglected to reveal information that could have called into question some of the witnesses who testified against her. But, again, the court said it wouldn’t have made a difference in the outcome and wasn’t enough to overcome the evidence against her. Now in the latest Supreme Court appeal, Carty’s current counsel – a team from Baker Botts led by Michael Goldberg – argued that those things combined would be enough to sway a jury to a different verdict. And, they said, courts have offered different opinions as to how and when the legal system should handle “cumulative error” claims alleging different types of Constitutional violations all at once. The National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, a group of criminal justice experts including Democratic state Rep. Gene Wu, and the United Kingdom all filed briefs supporting Carty’s appeal. Now, after the Supreme Court’s rejection, Goldberg says he plans to file another appeal. ⚑ | Report an error, an omission, a typo; suggest a story or a new angle to an existing story; submit a piece, a comment; recommend a resource; contact the webmaster, contact us: email@example.com. Opposed to Capital Punishment? Help us keep this blog up and running!
Between July 2 and Sept. Well, all eyes are on Pampanga as seen on the UCA News and the Overseas Filipino communities are watching. If these corrupt politicians think they can get away with their shameless impunity they are dead wrong. Now why would they pervert and steal the efficient collection from an honest administrator really tells us something. Is it because if Governor Ed Panlilio keeps on collecting the quarry fees in graft free transparent manner people will see the corruption of the past administration? Now who are these people lashing out and sabotaging what may have been the most efficient and honest governance? Is it because now they fear that shenanigans and scalawags of the past administration and some of these politicians were there during those days are afraid of getting exposed? Jimmy Soriano posted an excellent legal backgrounder on the Quarry supervision and the legal quandary of Among Ed jeopardizing his moral leadership to rid the province of the evils of graft and corruption.
By next week the grossly unconstitutional and illegal Ordinance No. 176 would come into full force and effect. If Governor Panlilio does not implement the law, after the provincial board has over-ridden his veto, he could be charged with deriliction of duty and be the subject of administrative proceedings, especially by vested interest groups seeking political vendetta. On the other hand, when Among Ed took his oath of office as governor of Pampanga, he swore to uphold the Constitution and obey and execute Philippine laws. This places Governor Ed in a precarious situation where he has to implement a local law which is constitutionally infirm and grossly violative or in contravention with national laws. It is neither here nor there for the good governor. After all, the clamor for good and moral governance would never succeed if, as often said, ‘good men do nothing’. It is ironic that the local Provincial Board are learning the tricks from their counterpart in the house of congress using sheer number to drown out and prevail over anyone that does not conform to their perversion.
It makes one wonder if jueteng errr Lilia Pineda has a hand in over ruling the veto of the governor since she was once a board member and what influence if any or role she played. Jimmy Soriano maybe right in saying that indeed it may have been political vendetta of sore losers that stands to lose should good governance take its root in the center of jueteng land and fake quarry receipts. The ordinance partakes of the nature of tax law which requires holding of public hearing and approval by the Secretary of Finance in addition to the usual requisites of publication of ordinance. Section 10 of the proposed ordinance is not compliant with this requirement. The ordinance which delegates the regulatory power of Governor Panlilio over quarry industry to the mayors is illegal and invalid as it is tantamount to an undue delegation of powers. Potestas delegata non delegari potest. What has been delegated cannot be delegated. A further delegation of such power would constitute a negation of the duty in violation of the trust reposed in the delegate (Governor Panlilio) mandated to discharge it directly. Unfortunately, the good governor cannot suspend the operation of the ordinance otherwise he will be charged administratively by the enemies of good governance. In addition, he may run afoul of the law on usurpation of legislative powers if he suspends the operation of ordinance. The appeal to the DOJ does not have the effect of suspending the operation of the recently approved ordinance. The ordinance has the presumption of regularity and color of legality unless and until it is declared null and void by the Secretary of Justice or a court of competent jurisdiction upon appeal, as the case maybe.
Most of us don’t think much about the US territories and commonwealths. Thanks to the Ladies of the Second Amendment and their lawsuit in a Puerto Rico commonwealth court, Puerto Ricans can now carry, open or concealed, without a permit and they no longer need a permit to purchase a firearm. The court’s ruling also abolished the gun registry in Puerto Rico. All firearms transactions will now handled in accordance with Federal firearms regulations. That’s way better than I have it in North Carolina. Below is the release that the Second Amendment Foundation put out announcing this win for gun rights in Puerto Rico. BELLEVUE, WA – A surprising victory for gun rights in Puerto Rico has eliminated the firearms registry and licensing requirements to purchase and carry in the Commonwealth, the Second Amendment Foundation has confirmed. The class-action lawsuit challenged various articles in Puerto Rico’s gun law, which the court declared unconstitutional. Because of the ruling, Barreras said, Puerto Ricans may now carry openly or concealed without a permit, and they do not need to obtain a permit before purchasing a firearm. This was a class action lawsuit involving more than 850 individual plaintiffs, she reported to SAF offices. The news was greeted with delight, especially because in reaching its decision, the court cited the Heller and McDonald Supreme Court cases, and the recent ruling in Palmer v. District of Columbia. Both the McDonald and Palmer cases were won by SAF. “Cumbersome firearms regulations have never prevented criminals from getting their hands on guns,” noted SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. Gottlieb said the lawsuit was brought in a Puerto Rican Commonwealth court, rather than a federal court. Puerto Rico is a U.S.
You don’t have to be a political animal to be following the news on Obamacare. And for those with disabilities, the Supreme Court’s recent ruling to uphold the bill could certainly impact your life. One huge element of President Obama’s Affordable Care Act is that people with pre-existing conditions can no longer be denied insurance coverage – an issue that affects more than 17 million children in the U.S. In the past, the risk of this happening was very real – and it could affect the medical care and even the happiness of an individual or entire family. Take for instance, someone who worked long hours at a job they hated. Obamacare also prohibits policies that put a cap on coverage limits. In previous years, some insurance policies just plain stopped when certain coverage limits were reached. This amount may be determined as an annual amount or over a lifetime, but when a patient has a disability and needs ongoing treatment, costs can add up in a hurry. So previously, after that limit was reached, the insured was on their own.
And the old pre-existing condition caveat made it hard for the person to get a different insurance, many times leaving them with no insurance at all. And lastly, Obamacare increases the age of young adults on the parent’s policy to 26. This is potentially a huge cost savings for young adults with or without a disability. In addition, depending on the health insurance carrier, an individual with special needs may be able to stay on that coverage for life. This last statement is not new information, but important to recognize and check out prior to the age of 26 for an individual with disabilities. Now, insurance plans have to provide decent coverage, too. Sounds simplistic, but it’s important. You want insurance that provides a certain level of care – annual physicals, mental health coverage and rehab services. Yearly check-ups help your doctor to find and keep on top of any health problems.
Rehabilitation after an illness or injury gets people moving up and out and back to work sooner. And while people often think they don’t need mental health coverage, all it takes is a serious illness or loss (of anything from a loved one to a job) to turn your world upside down. You might be glad you have it. The nation’s healthcare debate continues to rage on – with Democrats and Republicans each adding their own spin. And each of them has some very valid points. But one thing is clear – the ruling as upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court will certainly have a positive effect on the lives of many people currently living with a disability. Maedi Tanham Carney, CFP is the founder of M&L Special Needs Planning,LLC. A special needs financial planning company that works with families creating their unique life plans, solving & understanding government benefit issues and creating life insurance needs analysis to fund the special needs trust. We also have workshops in all areas of special needs.