Philosophy
The law but not justice
Just another example.
"Court says county doesn’t have to pay for mistake"
November 30th, 2010
The Midwest Democracy Project
The Supreme Court says Los Angeles County does not have to pay attorney fees to a couple listed as child abusers even though they were declared innocent years ago.The high court’s unanimous ruling came on Tuesday.Craig and Wendy Humphries were arrested by sheriff’s deputies nine years ago after their rebellious daughter accused them of abuse. State courts ruled the allegation was false but they remain on California’s Child Abuse Central Index.In 2008, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco found the system unconstitutional because there’s no way for the innocent to clear their names. It ordered the state to come up with a new system and the county to pay $60,000 in attorney fees to the Humphries.The high court reversed and remanded that decision, saying Los Angeles County does not have to pay.Los Angeles County argued that it could only be held liable and pay damages if a county policy or custom cause a violation of a constitutional right under a 1978 Supreme Court decision in Monell v. New York City Department of Social Services.The Child Abuse Central Index was a state policy, the county argued.The federal appeals courts had also split on whether Monell applies only to damages, or if it also applies to prospective relief as well like injunctions or declaratory judgments such as the Ninth Circuit’s decision to give the Humphries attorney fees.Justice Stephen Breyer, who wrote the 8-0 opinion for the court, said that it does.“We conclude that Monell’s holding applies to claims against municipalities for prospective relief as well as to claims for damages,” Breyer said.Justice Elena Kagan did not take part in the consideration and decision of the case because she worked on it while in the solicitor general’s office.The case was Los Angeles County v Humphries, 09-350.
-
Should Corporations Be Considered People?
Before oral arguments in the Supreme Court for the 1886 case Santa Clara County v. The Pacific Railroad Company, Chief Justice Morrison Waite famously said, "The Court does not wish to hear argument on the question whether the provision in the Fourteenth...
-
Monsanto Wins In Court Decision
"Farmers cannot replicate Monsanto seeds for second crop, Supreme Court rules" The Supreme Court ruled against an Indiana farmer who sought to cut the planting cost of his soybean crop by relying on subsequent generations of a patented Monsanto herbicide-resistant...
-
Settlement Has Been Made...now Individual Prosecution?
A settlement has been made for this unfortunate tragedy, but it looks like this is going beyond culpability and turning into a vicious prosecution. "California Chemistry Professor Arraigned In Lab Death Case" Lab Safety: Court enters not guilty...
-
Drug Sniffing Dogs And Civil Rights
Maybe a good idea, but I have seen people use a screwdriver as a hammer."Supreme Court to Decide if Cops Can Raid Homes Based on Drug-Sniffing Dog"byDavid Kravets January 6th, 2012WiredThe Supreme Court agreed Friday to decide for the first time whether...
-
Bikini Atoll And Enewetak Atoll Citizens Lose
Is this a case of greed or genuine need. And as usual the government made sure their butts were covered from any further litigation. "Supreme Court: No review of award for US nuclear weapons tests" US settled a claim more than 25 years ago over damage...
Philosophy