district court Archives

Canton-area law firms prevail in $25 million suit pitting Oberlin College against grocer

Posted on September 18, 2022 by Judith E. Ashton

It took years, but it looks like the case of a small-town grocery store against Oberlin College is over.

The case dates back to 2016 when a family member of the namesake Gibson’s Bakery and grocery store chased down and tackled a suspected shoplifter who was a student at the college.

The incident prompted a series of protests and boycotts alleging the store was racially profiling the students involved in the incident because they were Black.

Three students ended up pleading guilty to misdemeanor charges related to the theft and subsequent scuffle.

Gibson’s sued the college a year later, arguing it fanned the baseless racial flames and some of its staff even encouraged the protests. The college also ordered its suppliers to not purchase goods from the store that traces its history back to 1885.

This March 5, 2013 file photo shows a student riding a bicycle on the campus of Oberlin College in Oberlin, Ohio. The 9th District Court of Appeals upheld a $31 <a href= — This March 5, 2013 file photo shows a student riding a bicycle on the campus of Oberlin College in Oberlin, Ohio. The 9th District Court of Appeals upheld a $31 million judgment on Thursday, March 31, 2022 against Oberlin College that had been awarded to Gibson’s Bakery and Food Mart that successfully claimed it was libeled by the school after a shoplifting incident in November of 2016.

Two Canton-area law firms

Stark County-based firms Krugliak, Wilkins, Griffiths & Dougherty and Plakas Mannos filed a lawsuit a year later on behalf of the Gibson family, which was awarded a jaw-dropping $44 million in compensatory and punitive damages from a Lorain County jury.

The case has been kicked around on appeals including the 9th District Court of Appeals in

… Read the rest

Justice Department and Trump’s Lawyers Are Headed for a Legal War Over Presidential Power

Posted on September 12, 2022September 12, 2022 by Judith E. Ashton

Photo Illustration by Erin O'Flynn/The Daily Beast/Getty — Photo Illustration by Erin O’Flynn/The Daily Beast/Getty

The joint filing by the Department of Justice and Donald Trump’s legal team ordered by Trump-appointed Judge Aileen Cannon reveals an expanding chasm between the two sides that appears to make further legal battles inevitable. After Cannon required both sides to set forth substantive points upon which they can agree or disagree regarding Cannon’s decision to utilize a special master to review documents hidden in the Mar-A-Lago search warrant, the DOJ and Trump’s lawyers submitted a six-page filing. It was short because the parties disagree on everything, from proposed candidates to be the special master, to the scope of that person’s authority, to who should even pay for the special master.

The DOJ’s proposed candidates are two retired judges: Barbara Jones, formerly a federal district court judge in the Southern District of New York who recently served a special master in the review of documents in search warrants executed upon the offices of Trump lawyers Rudy Giuliani and Michael Cohen; and Thomas Griffith, formerly a federal court of appeals judge in Washington, DC

Trump’s lawyers proposed: Raymond Dearie, formerly the chief judge of the federal district court in the Eastern District of New York, with experience on the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISA court); and Paul Huck who had worked with one Trump’s current lawyers for then-Republican Florida Governor Charlie Crist. Huck is married to Judge Barbara Lagoa, a federal court of appeals judge on the 11th Circuit—the same court of appeals that will hear any appeal in this case.

Trump-Appointed Judge’s ‘Originalist’ Claim Is Absurd

Of these candidates, Huck looks completely compromised by conflicts of interest, given that he used to work with Trump’s current lawyer and his wife sits on the same appeals court that might hear appeals in the

… Read the rest

Lawyer Ducking Out So Ex Proud Boys Head Enrique Tarrio Can Defend Himself

Posted on September 6, 2022September 6, 2022 by Judith E. Ashton

The lawyer for Enrique Tarrio, former leader of the violent Proud Boys organization, asked a federal judge Thursday for permission to withdraw from three cases against his client regarding last year’s insurrection.

Tarrio plans to represent himself in at least one of the case, attorney J. Daniel Hull noted in the motion filed in the US District Court in Washington, DC

“J. Daniel Hull respectfully moves the Court for permission to withdraw his appearance in this and two related cases,” wrote the attorney, referring first to a civil suit against Enrique Tarrio.

Tarrio has also been accused in two criminal cases, including one charging him with sad conspiracy.

“Mr. Hull is authorized by Mr. Tarrio to represent that Tarrio consents to the withdrawal and that he will proceed in this case [the civil action] pro se,” representing himself, the motion for withdrawal states.

Hull noted, however, that the logistics of getting written consent from Tarrio has been difficult given Tarrio’s “unexpected arrest in mid-March,” his criminal indictment, his pre-trial detention and “his movements between several jails on the Eastern seaboard.”

The judge rejected Hull’s motion Friday because of the lack of Tarrio’s signed consent.

“Although the court understands counsel’s difficulty in communicating with Mr. Tarrio, there is no exception to [the] … requirement to notify the client of the motion to withdraw,” US District Court Judge Amit Mehta wrote.

The Justice Department has indicted several leaders of the Proud Boys — which has been declared a terrorist organization in Canada — and others as key planners of the Jan. 6, 2021, riot.

The day before the storming of the Capitol, Tarrio met in a parking garage in Washington, DC, with Oath Keepers leader Stewart Rhodeswho has also been charged with a sad conspiracy,

Tarrio had been ordered

… Read the rest

Planned Parenthood wants Supreme Court to review appellate court decision not to enjoin abortion law

Posted on August 21, 2022August 21, 2022 by Judith E. Ashton

Planned Parenthood is gearing up to ask the state Supreme Court to weigh in on whether a Tallahassee appellate court should have blocked Florida’s new abortion law from taking effect.

That law bans women and girls from getting abortions after 15 weeks of gestation.

The First District Court of Appeal in Tallahassee notified the Supreme Court on August 15 that Planned Parenthood Southwest and Central Florida had filed a notice notifying it of its plans to ask the state’s high court to invoke its discretionary jurisdiction and review the July 21 appellate court ruling.

“The decision is within the Supreme Court’s jurisdiction because it expressly and directly conflicts with a decision of the Supreme Court on the same question of law,” florida“American Civil Liberties Union of Florida attorney Daniel Tilley wrote.

At press time, the Supreme Court had not decided whether it would agree to consider the case.

The case was on appeal after a group of abortion clinics represented by the ACLU challenged the law in circuit court alleging it violated Florida’s voter-approved privacy clause, which in the past has been cited as a reason by the state Supreme Court to block abortion restrictions .

Circuit Court Judge John Cooper ruled that the ban — which does not include exceptions for rape, incest and human trafficking, but does have an exception for the pregnant woman’s life — was likely unconstitutional and issued a temporary injunction. The state, however, immediately appealed the ruling, which prevented the injunction from taking effect.

The decision was appealed to the First District Court in Tallahassee. In July, a split 2-1 decision was issued denying the request to stay the law.

Writing for the majority, Judge Brad Thomas suggested those challenging the law — including a doctor — could not show

… Read the rest

Biden Was Set to Tap Anti-Abortion Lawyer As a Judge on Day of Roe Ruling: Report

Posted on July 5, 2022July 5, 2022 by Judith E. Ashton

President Joe Biden was poised to nominate an anti-abortion attorney to a federal judgment on the same day that Roe v. Wade was overturned by the Supreme Court, according to the Louisville Courier-Journal.

In a White House email sent to Kentucky Democratic Gov. Andy Beshear on June 23, the administration announced that Biden planned to nominate Chad Meredith for a lifetime appointment to the US District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky on June 24, per the newspaper.

On June 24, the Supreme Court struck down Roe v. Wade, the 1973 court decision that legalized abortion in the United States and established a constitutional right to the procedure. (The Bluegrass State already had a trigger law in place ending abortion procedures in the state if Roe was tossed aside, but a federal judge has temporarily blocked it from taking effect, according to the Lexington Herald-Leader.)

Meredith’s nomination to the federal court has not been announced by the White House, but there are no signals that the administration has reversed course.

The undated email, which came from Kate Marshall — the White House senior advisor to governors and a former Nevada state treasurer and lieutenant governor — was recently accessed by the Courier-Journal.

The document read: “To be nominated tomorrow: … Stephen Chad Meredith: candidate for the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky.”

Beshear on Thursday was highly critical of the potential elevation of Meredith, a former chief deputy general counsel under ex-Republican Gov. Matt Bevin who later served as Kentucky’s solicitor general. During the last few months of Bevin’s administration, the governor made a series of controversial pardons, including one of a man who had been convicted of raping a child.

“If the president makes that nomination, it is indefensible,” the governor

… Read the rest

Texas state Supreme Court issues order allowing for civil enforcement of century-old abortion ban

Posted on July 3, 2022 by Judith E. Ashton

By Rebekah Riess, Tierney Sneed and Veronica Stracqualursi, CNN

The Texas Supreme Court issued an order late Friday partially granting state Attorney General Ken Paxton’s request to stay a lower court order that had temporarily blocked a nearly century-old abortion ban in the state.

The state high court‘s order now allows for civil enforcement of the 1925 pre-Roe v. Wade ban, court documents show.

But the Center for Reproductive Rights has interpreted the stay to mean that the law cannot be enforced criminally.

CNN reached out to Paxton’s office on Saturday to ask whether it agrees that criminal prosecutions remain stayed but has not received a response as of Saturday afternoon. Paxton, a Republican, lauded the state high court’s ruling on Twitter on Saturday.

“Thanks to my appeal, (the Texas Supreme Court) has slapped down the abortion providers and the district court carrying their water,” he wrote, adding that Texas’ pre-Roe abortion bans are “100% good law.”

A separate Texas law prohibiting abortion, its so-called trigger ban, will go into effect within the next few weeks.

After the US Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade on June 24, Paxton issued an advisory that told local prosecutors they were able to now bring prosecutions under the pre-Roe law.

Abortion providers in the state filed a lawsuit Monday against a handful of local district attorneys whose jurisdictions cover the locations of some of their clinics, as well as against some state officials, including Paxton.

On Tuesday, a Harris County district court judge issued a temporary restraining order against the 1925 abortion ban, which then allowed some clinics in the state to resume abortion procedures for up to around six weeks into pregnancy.

The district court is scheduled to hear arguments on the matter in a preliminary injunction hearing

… Read the rest