(360) 733-3773 Bellingham, WA

SHEPARD_ALLEN2

Author Archive for David Brown – Page 52

Different Types of Personal Injury Cases

Posted by David Brown 
· November 14, 2019 

The legal industry is an extremely important one as it can help to ensure that someone’s legal rights are properly represented. One type of legal expertise that provides very necessary representation is the area of personal injury, which helps to ensure that someone is properly reimbursed for losses incurred due to the negligence of another party. While the personal injury segment of the legal industry is relatively broad, there are a variety of types of cases that fit into this area.

 

Car Accidents

The most common cause of personal injury cases in the United States today are those that resulted from car accidents. Since millions of people drive a car on a daily basis, auto accidents are somewhat common. Unfortunately, these accidents can cause a variety of damages, including personal injuries. Normally, a careless driver, or one that is determined to be at fault in the accident, will be responsible for any damages caused.

 

Medical Malpractice

People that go to the doctor for medical care trust that their physicians, surgeons, and other healthcare providers will use sound judgment and expert care. Unfortunately, accidents do happen, which could make a condition worse or cause additional damages. A situation is normally considered medical malpractice if care and treatment fall below an appropriate or acceptable standard of care. A situation is not necessarily considered malpractice if treatment is not successful.

 

Dog Bites

Anyone that owns a dog is responsible for that animal at all times. While most dogs are friendly, they are still impulsive animals that could react violently in random situations. If someone is bitten and injured by a dog, the responsibility to cover damages will vary from state to state. In some states, an owner will be responsible for all situations. In other states, an owner will be liable only if they knew their animal had a violent temper.

 

Assault and Battery

The majority of personal injury cases are due to an accident and possible negligence of another party. However, assault, battery, and other intentional torts can also be considered personal injury cases. If someone has been attacked and assaulted by another person, they may have a personal injury claim. Additional criminal charges often apply in these situations as well.

Categories : News
Tags :

When the Word Senseless Describes the Worst in Us

Posted by David Brown 
· November 12, 2019 

Christopher Watts was married to his wife, Shannan, and they had two daughters Bella, 4, and Celeste, 3. Shannan was expecting another child. The Watts were going through a financial crisis, having filed for bankruptcy in 2015. Christopher Watts was working at a petroleum company, Anadarko Petroleum.

On August 13, 2018, Christopher Watts informed his wife that he was having an affair and wanted a divorce. Shannan is said to have threatened that he would not see his children, and the couple’s argument became very heated. Christopher Watts, in his rage, strangled Shannan, who was fifteen weeks pregnant. As the murder of Shannan was taking place, his daughter Bella in her confusion, witnessed the death of her mother and, eventually, the suffocation of her sister Celeste. Watts, following his depraved plan, put his live daughters in his truck without their car seats, and Shannan’s now wrapped the body was placed in the truck. At the petroleum company, Watt’s suffocated his daughters despite Bella’s’ attempt to save herself, questioning her father’s behavior. The girls were stuffed in oil drums while Shannon was buried in a shallow grave.

On August 12th Shannan was with one of her friends at a social event and was brought to her home in the early morning of August 13th. Shannan did not show up for work, and her friend tried to contact Shannon on August 13th and went to Shannan’s house. Chris could not explain his missing family’s whereabouts, and Shannan’s friend contacted the police. Christopher Watts made public comments seeking the return of his family. While being interviewed by police, Watts told the police that he witnessed his wife suffocate his children, and in his rage, he strangled her. He told the police where the bodies were buried and eventually confessed to the murders of his family including the death of his unborn child, being spared the death sentence.

The Shannon’s parents Frank and Sandy Rzucek wanted the killing to end and did not want Watts put to death. The Rzueck’s have lost their reason to live with the destruction of the lives of their daughter and grandchildren. Their lives have also destroyed. They sued Watts, and he agreed to a six million dollar settlement, an amount they will never see, but it would stop Watts from enriching himself by selling the story,

Can an ordinary person commit an evil act?

Categories : News
Tags : ,

Death of Emantic Bradford Leads to Lawsuit Against Unnamed Hoover, AL Police Officer

Posted by David Brown 
· November 7, 2019 

It has been a year since the army soldier Emantic “EJ” Bradford was killed while walking around a mall on Thanksgiving. Sadly, his death came at the hands of an unnamed Hoover, AL police officer. As loved ones continue to grieve, which is particularly challenging during the holiday season, Bradford’s family has filed a wrongful death lawsuit against both the city of Hoover and the unnamed police officer. The lawsuit was filed by Emantic Bradford’s mother, April Pipkins.

Allegations in the Wrongful Death Suit

Ms. Pipkins is alleging that the officer ignored his training and violated the policy of the police department when he decided not to turn on his body camera. In addition, the lawsuit alleges that the officer did not issue any verbal commands to Mr. Bradford prior to drawing his weapon and opening fire. Finally, the officer did not attempt to ascertain whether Mr. Bradford posed any threat to the officer before he shot him to death.

A Life of Service

Mr. Bradford was a member of the military as a combat engineer in the United States Army. He always sought to help others, which he was doing the night he was killed. On Thanksgiving of last year, he was with his family at a local shopping mall. That evening, an unrelated individual began firing on shoppers. Mr. Bradford, who had a permit for his firearm, drew his weapon and started to escort people to safety. That was when the unnamed police officer drew his weapon and killed Mr. Bradford.

City Denies Wrongdoing

The Attorney General for the state of Alabama stated back in February that no case would be brought against the officer. Furthermore, the Justice Department will not be initiating any civil rights case against the officer. The city has also stood by its officer and has stated it will continue to continue to do so in the wake of this lawsuit.

Questions Surround the Case

One of the key citations in the lawsuit is that the authorities have delivered shifting narratives of the encounter. The reports provide shifting accounts of what Mr. Bradford was doing prior to and during the shooting. The family is seeking answers to these questions and justice in the loss of their loved one.

Categories : News
Tags :

Wrongful Death Lawsuit Filed by Bradford Family

Posted by David Brown 
· November 5, 2019 

Emantic “EJ” Bradford, Jr’s family has filed a federal civil rights lawsuit over his death. Bradford, a young black man, was killed by a police officer in Hoover a year ago. Attorneys for the family say the officer didn’t follow proper procedures during the incident.

On Thanksgiving night 2018, shots were fired at the Riverchase Galleria mall. Within seconds, a responding police officer then shot and killed the 21-year-old. The police first said that Bradford was the shooter and then admitted the next day that they were wrong. There were marches and protests in the community for weeks following the incident.

The city of Hoover, as well as the officer who shot Bradford, are named in the lawsuit. Officials have not publicly identified the officer involved. The attorneys for Bradford’s family say that the officer didn’t issue a verbal warning before the shooting, which violates recommended policing procedures. The officer is also accused of not turning on his body camera, as well as not verifying if Bradford actually posed a threat before shooting and killing him. The family lawyer, Ben Crump, said that Bradford was never given a chance. The police shot first and then asked questions later.

A year after the shooting at a press conference, another attorney, Devon Jacob, said that the policing policies of the Hoover Police Department are “below standard.” He said this isn’t about the shooting in the Galleria but instead about the right to possess a handgun. At the time of his death, Bradford did have a handgun and was trying to help other people when the first shooting happened. Bradford does have a permit to carry a weapon. At the press conference, individuals called on the police department to release the name of the officer, as well as video related to the case. A separate lawsuit has been filed seeking that information. Bradford’s mother, April Pipkins, said the lawsuit is to bring changes so that no one else has to live through this.

Phillip Corley, the Hoover City Attorney, said that officials defend the officer against the lawsuit and points to a review by the U.S. Justice Department and Alabama Attorney General that says there wasn’t any criminal wrongdoing by the officer. The city has stood by the officer the whole time and will continue doing so.

Categories : News
Tags :

Corporations Are Legal Persons, Elephants Are Not

Posted by David Brown 
· September 26, 2019 

Elephants are not people. It may seem obvious, but the recent Nonhuman Rights Project, Inc. v. R.W. Commerford & Sons, Inc. (Conn. App. Ct. 2019) argued that three elephants were denied a writ of habeas corpus when they were imprisoned (presumably) against their will in a Connecticut zoo. The court refused to rule on the case on jurisdictional grounds, maintaining that elephants are not people and thus not entitled to habeas corpus protection. A lower Connecticut court had already ruled that habeas corpus did not apply to elephants. The lower court judge refused to elaborate on the issues in the case, stating simply and non-ambiguously, “THE PETITION IS WHOLLY FRIVOLOUS ON ITS FACE.”

However, the issue of whether an elephant is a person is not as simple as it may seem. In the notes of the “Nonhuman Rights Project” case, the court panel explains that “Black’s Law Dictionary” defines “person” as “[a] human being,” “[t]he living body of a human being,” or as “[a]n entity (such as a corporation) that is recognized by law as having most of the rights and duties of a human being.” and that “the words ‘person’ and ‘another’ may extend and be applied to communities, companies, corporations, public or private, limited liability companies, societies, and associations.” So, corporations can be “persons”, but elephants cannot.

The court went on to explain in the court notes that although animals are not people (and are thus not afforded rights like habeas corpus), others (people and organizations) can advocate for their human treatment, whether they live in the wild or captivity. However, they defined those advocates narrowly, such as caregiver, guardian or someone else with a relationship with the animals. Steven Wise and his Nonhuman Rights Project have no such relationship with the Connecticut elephants, the mini elephant bio on the website notwithstanding.

This discussion is not likely to go away anytime soon. The Nonhuman Rights Project has deep pockets and a stylish website devoted to promoting awareness of their campaign and raising funds for court cases like the recent one in the Connecticut Appellate Court.

Categories : News
Tags : ,

Common Cause v. Lewis

Posted by David Brown 
· September 24, 2019 

The “New Oxford Dictionary” defines gerrymandering as “the act of manipulating the boundaries of (an electoral constituency) so as to favor one party or class.” Those who follow North Carolina politics have been discussing this practice for a while. The realignment of the state’s congressional districts in 2017 was ruled by the US Supreme Court as unconstitutional in their “Rucho v. Common Cause” ruling earlier this year. However, the high court maintained that they had little authority to police this type of redistricting, that they would rely on the state courts to do that.

In September, the North Carolina ruled in “Common Cause v. Lewis” that the 2017 redistricting in the state was contrary to the state’s Constitution and, the “Russo” ruling notwithstanding, the state courts did have the authority to enforce the redistricting provisions of the state Constitution. In particular, the state court…

1. Pointed out the ways that the North Carolina State Constitution goes beyond the outline set out by the federal Constitution on this issue.

2. Offered a different interpretation of similar language in the North Carolina Constitution to that of the Federal Constitution. For example, they said, “North Carolina’s Equal Protection Clause provides greater protection for voting rights than federal equal protection provisions. . . . North Carolina courts can and do interpret even ‘identical terms’ in the State’s Constitution more broadly than their federal counterparts.”

3. Maintained that the redistricting issue was a legal one, not a political one. Unlike the “Rucho” ruling, which maintained that the North Carolina redistricting was a political issue, the North Carolina state court maintained that the 2017 structure violated state law.

It’s important to note that this may not be the final word on this issue. The North Carolina Supreme Court could overrule the “Lewis” ruling. (Since the “Lewis” ruling is based on an “adequate and independent” state-law ground, there is no possibility of a federal court overturning the ruling. ) However, the North Carolina Attorney General has no plans to appeal the “Lewis” ruling in the North Carolina Supreme Court at this time.

Categories : News
Tags : ,

Mountain Crest vs. Anheuser-Busch InBev

Posted by David Brown 
· September 19, 2019 

Mountain Crest originally sued Anheuser-Busch InBev and Molson Coors, two major heavyweights in the beer industry, for conspiring together to keep Mountain Crest out of the LCBO, the Ontario provincial government-operated liquor store system. Mountain Crest’s claim was centered around the premise that two beer company defendants worked together in a conspiracy to block Mountain Crest from selling any of its beer to the Ontario consumer market, or at least in large amounts. The only businesses the LBCO that would provide to customers in packages of more than six bottles (i.e. 12-packs or 24-bottle cases) were to be Anheuser-Busch or Molson Coors products. The Canadian district court, however, did not agree with the claim under the act of state doctrine and dismissed the case.

The logic of the district court was then appealed by Mountain Crest. The original plaintiff in the case argued that the court could in fact act without running afoul of the act of state doctrine as originally decided at the district level. Mountain Crest tried two appeal arguments formally. The first was that the regulatory six-bottle rule blocking their increases sales in the LCBO stores was an overt abuse of the act of state doctrine and illegal, basically an equity argument. The second, which was an alternate approach, posited that the court could reverse Ontario’s LCBO six-bottle limit rule and still maintain the act of state doctrine without affecting the Ontario government’s ability to create provincial government regulations in general.

The appellate court panel viewed Ontario’s provincial government, the entity running the LCBOs, as a foreign state. Because of this status, the country’s act of state doctrine then protected the LCBO’s decisions, essentially functioning as an extension office of the Ontario provincial government. Thus, while the court actually agreed that the LCBO was giving Anheuser-Busch and Molson Coors a market monopoly, it was an act allowable under Canadian federal law. The court could not discern or separate the issue of the six-bottle cap from the bigger issue of the LCBO being part of the Ontario government. The regulatory decision and the entities are one and the same, and in this regard, the act of state doctrine was intended to protect the legislative power of the provincial government. Therefore the six-bottle rule could not be severed as an exception.

Categories : News
Tags : , ,

DeJoria v. Maghreb Petroleum Exploration

Posted by David Brown 
· September 17, 2019 

John Paul DeJoria, the tycoon who created Paul Mitchell hair care products, decided to venture into oil exploration. With the blessing of the Moroccan government, he set about doing this, but the reserves never materialized. DeJoria abandoned the project and is now being sued for $100 million by Maghreb Petroleum Exploration, the new manager. Originally filed in Moroccan courts, the case has been brought to Texas, as Maghreb is seeking enforcement of the judgment.

Reversals in the Texas District and Circuit Courts

The Texas district court refused to recognize the decision based on the lack of due process in Moroccan courts. However, the Fifth Circuit reversed the decision, stating that under the Texas UFMJRA, which recognizes the decisions of foreign courts, a lack of due process wasn’t enough to refuse recognition.

Subsequently, DeJoria’s lawyers went before the Texas legislature to amend the UFMJRA. Texas adopted the UFCMJRA, which allows failures of due process to result in non-recognition. Ironically, the new statute had a look-back clause, allowing it to be applied retroactively to pending cases.

On these dubious grounds, DeJoria was able to restate his case. The Texas district court found that DeJoria did not receive due process, stating the defendant couldn’t attend the Moroccan proceedings or obtain representation there. On appeal, the Fifth Circuit stated it would only look at the case again for errors of fact — despite the that there was no presentation of evidence thus far in the Texas portion of the conflict. In other words, the nonrecognition was based solely on affidavits.

What Makes This Case an Anomaly?

Texas law allowed for this finding, despite the fact that a claim must be pleaded and proven. To avoid a trial, DeJoria could have filed a Civil Procedure and brought a motion for summary judgment. This would have prevented a finding of fact.

The Fifth Circuit affirmed that DeJoria had a valid defense to recognition. His inability to present his case in Moroccan court denied his right to due process. Therefore, the Texas courts refused to recognize the decision of the Moroccan courts.

Categories : News
Tags : , , ,

Plant-Based Milks vs. The Dairy Industry

Posted by David Brown 
· September 12, 2019 

The battle between the dairy industry and plant-based milk products to limit the legal use of the term “milk”, while perhaps not earth-shaking, is an interesting example of how regulation can be used to clarify and limit the use of terms. And when you think about the business of the law, in reality, that’s what much of it is about. You can’t have regulation and law without a strict definition of many concepts. Food standards of identity (SOI) are requirements by the FDA that do just that.

Legal Definitions

For an example close to that of the dairy vs. other kinds of milk battle, think of the use of the term “organic.” Often, the legitimate use of that term boosts a product’s value by a substantial amount. But what exactly determines whether a product is organic? A governing body must set the standards to clearly outline what “organic” is considered to be. The USDA does this for many products.

Counterfeit Milk?

The term “milk” is not problematic in the same way. It’s not as if most consumers don’t realize almond or soy milk are not from cows. They certainly do. We know, for example, that almond milk has nothing to do with bovine lactations, but features a certain type of nut. The fight seems to boil down to a certain type of proprietary value that the dairy industry feels is connected to the term “milk.” And, doubtless, the products produced by those in the plant-based segment of the milk market have converted an increasing amount of dairy-product customers.

Smelling the Roses

Does a rose by any other name really smell as sweet? In this case, the dairy industry seems to say it does not. When governing bodies like the FDA make a determination to limit a term, like “organic”, or “meat” there are usually counterfeit products claiming to be something they are not. But the many non-dairy products that use the term “milk” simply seem to be using the term in a more general, but still accepted, way, similar to the way the term “juice” is used. It’s difficult to say how much economic value use of the term “milk” has. It seems slightly ridiculous to enforce limited usage at this late stage. Still, the final determination on who exactly can utilize the term “milk” hasn’t been made yet, although an upcoming FDA public meeting may do just that.

Categories : News
Tags : , ,

ADA Compliance Online

Posted by David Brown 
· September 10, 2019 

The American Disabilities Act (ADA), a civil rights law protecting the disabled was put in force in 1990. The ADA prohibits discrimination against individuals with disabilities. Discrimination is not allowed in all areas of public life, including jobs, schools, transportation, and all public and private places enjoyed by the public by providing the disabled “reasonable accommodations” irrespectively of disability. For example, in the area of employment, reasonable accommodations are any modifications that help a covered person under the ADA to satisfy the essential job functions.

The essential purpose of the ADA is to allow people who are physically disabled to enter public buildings (via ramps, wide doors, large bathroom stalls, etc.) and to provide auditory and visual aids for those with visual and auditory impairments, as well as modified educational programs for the learning disabled. Internet websites were not contemplated by the ADA, and in 1990 there were no ADA accessibility rules for websites. Websites offer content and have not been considered to require modifications to comply with the ADA.

However, there are both linguistic and nonlinguistic elements of content that add to an understanding of such through the development of the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG). WCAG is prepared by a worldwide group of individuals and organizations. Standard guidelines are developed to make content accessible and meet the needs of website development by individuals, organizations, and governments internationally to place websites within the sphere of disability regulations. The focus on ADA compliance is on the elements of content such as:

a) perceivable issues,

b) operable issues involve the ability to navigate the website,

c) understandable issues to comprehend website content and

d) robust issues that test the strength and adaptability of the website to meet the linguistic needs of the disabled.

ADA is under the control of the Department of Justice (DOJ). Modifications of the WCAG guidelines are continually being upgraded. For example, the final rule of the WCAG 2.0 guideline was adopted in January 2017 and again in 2019. Initially, the WCAG guidelines were modified to update Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. To be ADA compliant, you must adopt the final rules prepared by the WCAG and the DOJ enforces website accessibility. The fail-safe method to be compliant is to find sources that tutor one in how to analyze the complexities of website compliance or retain professionals that apply the technical ADA rules of website compliance.

Categories : News
Tags : , , ,
« Previous Page
Next Page »

Bellingham Office:

2011 Young Street
Suite 202
Bellingham, WA  98225
(360) 733-3773 or 647-4567
(360) 647-9060 (facsimile)
info@saalawoffice.com

shepard_allen