Showing posts with label Court. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Court. Show all posts

Wednesday, December 22, 2010

N.Y. court: Errant shots an expected risk

ALBANY, N.Y. – Slices, hooks and other errant shots are a common hazard on the links and a golfer can’t expect to get a warning shout of “Fore!” every time a ball comes his way, New York’s top court ruled Tuesday in dismissing a personal injury lawsuit.

Dr. Anoop Kapoor and Dr. Azad Anand were playing on a nine-hole Long Island course in October 2002 when Anand was hit in the head while looking for his ball on a fairway, blinding him in one eye. The seven judges on the state Court of Appeals, siding with lower courts, said Kapoor’s failure to yell in advance of his errant shot from the rough did not amount to intentional or reckless conduct.

The court cited a judge’s finding that Anand was not in the foreseeable zone of danger and, as a golfer, consented to the inherent risks of the sport.

“The manner in which Anand was injured – being hit without warning by a ‘shanked’ shot while one searches for one’s own ball – reflects a commonly appreciated risk of golf,” the judges wrote.

They also broadly outlined the test under New York case law for determining when another golfer crosses the line and could be sued.

“A person who chooses to participate in a sport or recreational activity consents to certain risks” that are inherent to that activity, the judges wrote. “However, a plaintiff ‘will not be deemed to have assumed the risks of reckless or intentional conduct or concealed or unreasonably increased risks.’”

Anand, a neuroradiologist, was unable to work after he was hit by Kapoor’s sliced shot, said Steven Cohn, Anand’s attorney. Cohn argued that the case should not be dismissed without a trial, that the foreseeable zone of danger differs with the skill of the golfer and there were disputed questions of fact in this case.

Calls to Cohn and Kapoor’s attorney, William Hartlein, were not immediately returned Tuesday.

The men, frequent golf partners, were playing at the Dix Hills Park Golf Course with another friend, Balram Verma, in 2002, according to court papers. After hitting a second shot on the first hole, each set off to find his ball.

Anand testified that he was hit as soon as he found his ball and turned around, about 15 to 20 feet away from Kapoor.

Verma testified that Anand was about 20 feet away from Kapoor and about 50 degrees away from the intended line of flight for Kapoor’s shot.

Kapoor testified that Anand was farther away and at an angle of 60 to 80 degrees. He said he shouted the warning when he realized the ball was headed toward Anand. Neither friend said he heard it.

According to the British Golf Museum, the term “fore” may have come from forecaddie, meaning someone employed to go ahead of players to see where their balls land. In his 1881 “The Golfer’s Handbook,” Robert Forgan wrote that a golfer shouts the word “to give the alarm to anyone in his way.”

This entry passed through the Full-Text RSS service — if this is your content and you're reading it on someone else's site, please read our FAQ page at fivefilters.org/content-only/faq.php
Five Filters featured site: So, Why is Wikileaks a Good Thing Again?.


View the original article here

Thursday, October 28, 2010

Appellate court hits voter ID law

Error deserializing body of reply message for operation 'Translate'. The maximum string content length quota (8192) has been exceeded while reading XML data. This quota may be increased by changing the MaxStringContentLength property on the XmlDictionaryReaderQuotas object used when creating the XML reader. Line 1, position 9190.

by Michelle Ye Hee Lee - Oct.27, 2010 12: 00 AM
The Arizona Republic

A federal appeals short on Tuesday struck down Arizona's requirement that residents provide proof of citizenship when they register to vote.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit ruled that a federal voting registration law supersedes Arizona's requirement.

Among its provisions, the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 created a standard federal registration form in an effort to increase voting registration in federal elections.The federal form requires applicants to sign the form and attest to their citizenship status under penalty of perjury.

Arizona has a separate state registration form that specifically asks for information such as a driver's license or passport number. But no matter which form people use, the state requires proof of citizenship under motion 200, which was approved by voters in 2004.

In a 2-1 decision, the judges ruled that Arizona's requirement conflicts with the federal act, which requires states to make registration opportunities "widely available" and remove barriers to voting registration. Arizona native and former U.S. Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor sat on the panel.

The ruling does not affect next week's general election because voting registration ended earlier this month. Prop.200 also requires voters to show proper identification at polls. Judges did not rule on that provision.

Plaintiffs in the case said the judges' ruling removes unnecessary barriers to voting registration, especially for newly naturalized citizens who may have to go through extra steps to prove their citizenship.

State officials who support Prop. 200 called the decision year "insulting," and that provisions in the proposal helped make sure that only eligible people voted in elections.

Mika Marquart, a Jakarta for the Arizona Attorney General's Office, said the office plans to petition for a rehearing with a larger panel of 9th Circuit Court judges in what is called an "en banc" decision.

Prop.200 background

Prop.200 made it on the redhorse in 2004 through the citizens initiative process.

The proposal, then referred to as the illegal-immigration initiative, required proof of U.S. citizenship to register and vote and it also denied certain non-federally mandated public benefits to illegal immigrants.

Groups representing Hispanic, Native American and voting rights challenged Prop. 200.

In January 2005, the 9th Circuit Court rejected the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund's emergency motion against Prop.200, requesting the short block some of its provisions from going into effect.

The fund appealed to the short again in 2008.The plaintiffs argued that the identification requirements are too onerous and that more than 30,000 vote-registration applications in Arizona have been rejected as a result.

Prop.200 made people "jump through hoops" to become voters and affected minority voting, said Nina Perales, MALDEF national senior counsel and lead counsel on the case.

The law particularly affected newly naturalized U.S. citizens whose voting registrations were rejected because they received their driver's licenses when they were green-card holders, Perales said. They would provide their license numbers, but they were still coded as non-citizens through the Arizona Department of transportation's Motor Vehicle Division, she said.

When new citizens' registrations are rejected, they have to take extra steps to photocopy their birth certificates or naturalization forms, and people might give up trying to register, she said.

State officials who support the proof of citizenship say the requirement helps make sure there is no election fraud."I think the decision by the 9th Circuit is an outrage, and I think it's a slap in the face to Arizonans who are concerned about the integrity of our elections," Secretary of State Ken Bennett told The Republic.

Bennett said voting registration has not decreased since 2004.There were 2.6 million registered voters in Arizona in 2004, and there are 3.14 million voters registered for this year's election, he said.

In a joint statement, Bennett and Gov't.Jan Brewer, who backed Prop.200 when she was secretary of state, said proving citizenship is a "critical election-security requirement."

Registration process

Arizonans can register to vote with either the federal or the state registration form.

For the state forms, they are required to provide information from one of the following documents: a driver's license, passport, birth certificate or a tribal identification or naturalization certificate number.Voters who register online must provide driver's license numbers, which are run through MVD's system.

Maricopa County Director of Elections Karen Osborne said it takes five to six seconds to verify the citizenship status of a person who provides his or her naturalization certificate number because the election department's system is connected to the U.S. Department of Homeland Security.

Those registering with the federal form must provide a driver's license number or the last four digits of his or her social security number, said Matt Benson, a spokesman for the Secretary of State's Office.However, Benson said a Social Security number is not sufficient enough to prove citizenship.

So if the County recorder's Office finds the provided information is insufficient, they will try to contact the applicant to provide additional proof of citizenship.

If legal appeals to Tuesday's ruling are unsuccessful, the state would have to amend its voting registration form to match the federal version, Benson said.

What's next?

Jon Greenbaum, legal director of the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, said the judges' decision may indicate how federal judges would rule in upcoming immigration-related court cases.The civil-rights group was a co-counsel in the case.

Senate Bill 1070, the state's controversial immigration law, will go before the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals on Monday.Brewer is appealing U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton's July ruling, which prevented several parts of SB 1070 from going into effect.On Dec.8, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear appeals against Arizona's 2007 employ sanctions law, which prohibits employers from knowingly hiring undocumented workers.

State officials intend to challenge Tuesday's ruling all the way up to the Supreme Court if necessary, Bennett said.

This entry passed through the Full-Text RSS service - if this is your content and you're reading it on someone else's site, please read our FAQ page at fivefilters.org/content-only/faq.php
Five Filters featured article: Beyond Hiroshima - The Non-Reporting of Fallujah's Cancer Catastrophe.


View the original article here

Monday, October 25, 2010

Fight a father | The future of the Court for child

Error in deserializing body of reply message for operation 'Translate'. The maximum string content length quota (8192) has been exceeded while reading XML data. This quota may be increased by changing the MaxStringContentLength property on the XmlDictionaryReaderQuotas object used when creating the XML reader. Line 1, position 8817.
Error in deserializing body of reply message for operation 'Translate'. The maximum string content length quota (8192) has been exceeded while reading XML data. This quota may be increased by changing the MaxStringContentLength property on the XmlDictionaryReaderQuotas object used when creating the XML reader. Line 1, position 9102.

Editor's note: This is a follow-up to a six-part series of in-depth reports by columnist Issac J. Bailey in which he examined a Conway father's two-year struggle to bring his daughter home from a New York foster home.

This week, Johnny Smith, his wife and a few other family members will drive 17 hours to Warren County, N.Y., for a hearing before a judge who will decide whether his more than two-year fight to bring his daughter home to Horry County will end.

She has been in a New York foster home since July 2008 after being battered, bruised and assaulted by the teenage sons of her mother's boyfriend, according to police and medical reports.

On Wednesday, Smith will try to clear another in a series of hurdles to reclaim the daughter who lived safely in his home for the first three years of her life, a hurdle that would have not existed except for the drawn-out implementation of the federal Interstate Compact on the Placement of Children law by officials in New York and South Carolina.

For the past two years, Smith has been exhausting his modest savings and retirement accounts, paying lawyers and hounding officials with S.C. Department of Social Services for help.

For the past two years, Warren County DSS argued that it could not return her to Conway because S.C. DSS said the Smith home was unsuitable and "financially fragile" - a decision the Smiths could not challenge because South Carolina does not have an appeals process for cases that fall under the federal interstate rule, meaning no state judge could overturn the decision of the case worker.

After two denials, S.C. DSS recently agreed that the Smith home is now suitable for his daughter's return.

But even though the rationale upon which the Warren County Department of Social Services based its original decision no longer applies, the department plans to use another one: It will argue that Smith's daughter should remain in custody because "all of her medical, educational, mental health and emotional needs are being met," according to court documents.

And it is asking that Smith pay for more than $30,000 in medical expenses, Smith said.

His daughter now effectively has two families, both of whom have reason to be deeply, emotionally tied to her.

She has spent two years and three months with her New York foster family, which has had the primary duty to nurse her back to health, to see her wounds heal, to cradle her during nightmares, to take her to doctor and therapist appointments, and to school and activities a 5-year-old girl trying to overcome horrific abuse needs.

Smith's daughter has been calling her foster parents "mommy" and "daddy." Shortly into her stay in foster care, she began calling Smith "Johnny."

"The case worker said that was to show that they have a stable environment," Smith said. "Now I'm being called 'daddy Johnny.' For a 5-year-old to call you by your first name and not daddy is very heart-breaking, makes me feel like the three years she was here with me was pushed aside for someone else, like I'm being made to be forgotten."

A need for change

Attempts to change the laws and procedures that exacerbated Smith's plight are being considered. The S.C. Department of Social Services is reviewing options for changing the process for those subjected to the ICPC.

National ICPC reformers and experts are continuing a push for changes on the federal level, which may include taking more fully into account the constitutional rights of biological parents, commissioning a comprehensive look at the law's impact, and an appeals process for the law, which was designed to provide out-of-state social services agencies with vital information about households into which a child might be sent from foster care.

The S.C. General Assembly may weigh in when it gets back in session early next year.

"[Smith's] story ... highlighted a problem which continued to worsen due to the flaws in the law and failures of the system," said state Rep. Tracy Edge, who helps determine DSS and other health care funding. "With the legislature being out of session we have not had the opportunity to codify any changes or act upon them. ... I am told that [DSS] is trying to come up with new protocols on dealing with these issues in the future where the procedure of another state creates issues in how cases are normally dealt with."

Those changes are about broader issues concerning the ICPC, which has affected parents throughout the country, according to analysts.

For Smith and his daughter, this week is personal.

Her abuse began after Smith and the girl's mother, Helen Prince, ended their nine-year live-in relationship and the child moved with Prince to the South Carolina home she shared with her boyfriend. It continued when they moved to New York.

And although Smith sought help from S.C. investigators when his daughter was still living in South Carolina and he first suspected she was being harmed, authorities did not step in until the then-3-year-old was dressed in a shirt and diaper crossing busy Route 9 in Queensbury, N.Y.

Her mother served less than a year in jail for her role in the abuse. The boys, then 12 and 15, didn't serve time because their father wasn't present during an interrogation when they gave details of what happened.

Months after Prince was released, she was charged in similar crimes with another family in Brunswick County, N.C. Those charges were dropped after a key witness failed to show up in court. She, too, has been trying to regain custody of her daughter, though her paperwork has not been completed. She has declined to be interviewed.

The Smiths have filed suit against Warren County for custody and are asking for their lawyer's fees and other costs be paid for, though they primarily want their daughter home, they said.

"I don't know what to do no more," he said. "All they do is hide behind red tape."

Best interest

On Wednesday, it won't be about red tape. It won't be about Smith being pushed further into financial instability because of the length of the case. It won't be about the months it took to send a request for a home study from Warren County to Horry County and back again. It will be about what constitutes the ill-defined "best interest of the child."

Is it in her best interest to keep her in foster care longer or to let the foster parents adopt her, which would mean legally stripping Smith of his parental rights?

Or is it better to return to her father, his new wife, her siblings and extended family on farmland in rural Horry County?

If she is returned, "an Horry DSS worker will be visiting the Smith home," said Virginia Williamson, DSS spokeswoman. "Part of her work will be assistance with accessing services locally and assessing the need for other services. Mr. Smith would need to tell her about any problems so she can help. New York will retain responsibility for helping Mr. Smith. If New York makes this placement, everyone will work together so it can be successful."

Smith says he understands the dilemma, that his daughter "sees it as having two families."

He has already arranged a therapist and doctor and school, all of whom said they can provide the same level of services his daughter has been receiving in Warren County.

He appreciates how the foster family has treated his daughter and believes they are good people. He wants them to remain a part of her life, through phone calls and visits and other ways. But he wants his daughter home.

"The last time we visited her, she asked when she could come home," he said. "She said, 'Where's my brothers and sisters? Why can't I go home with you?' I can answer it, but it don't make sense to her. I just want to try the best I can because my daddy never tried for me."

Richard Wexler, executive director of the National Coalition for Child Protection Reform, says the legal case for returning custody to the Smiths is clear.

"If I kidnap your child at birth, flee to Mexico, take really good care of her, 'meet all her needs,' and then come back two years later - can I keep her? Of course not," he said. "So why is the standard different when the 'kidnapping' is done under color of the law by a government agency? If Johnny Smith were middle class, this wouldn't even be an issue. The child would have been returned very quickly."

Wexler recommends the judge give Smith custody while allowing the foster parents to remain involved in her life.

"Ideally, the Warren County court will recognize that, ideally Johnny Smith will allow the foster parents to remain a part of his daughter's life," he said. "And ideally South Carolina will pick up the tab to let the foster parents come and visit the child in South Carolina. Ideally. But, of course, you don't often get an ideal result in child welfare."

This entry passed through the Full-Text RSS service — if this is your content and you're reading it on someone else's site, please read our FAQ page at fivefilters.org/content-only/faq.php
Five Filters featured article: Beyond Hiroshima - The Non-Reporting of Falluja's Cancer Catastrophe.


View the original article here