Court weighs securities fraud class-action cases

The Supreme Court is considering whether to abandon a quarter-century of precedent and make it tougher for investors to band together to sue corporations for securities fraud.

The justices hear arguments Wednesday in an appeal by Halliburton Co. that seeks to block a class-action lawsuit claiming the energy services company inflated its stock price.

A group of investors says it lost money when Halliburton's stock price dropped after revelations the company misrepresented revenues, understated its liability in asbestos litigation and overstated the benefits of a merger.

Justices threw out the company's first attempt to block the lawsuit in 2011. But Halliburton is now urging the court to overturn a 25-year-old decision that sparked a tidal wave of securities-related, class-action lawsuits against publicly traded companies and has led to billions in settlements.

The court's 1988 decision in Basic v. Levinson says shareholders who claim they were defrauded by false statements in securities filings don't have to prove they actually relied on the statements. Rather, the court reasoned that any misrepresentation would be reflected in the current stock price. Even if investors are not aware of the misstatements, they are presumed to be aware of them because they affect the stock price.

This presumption, known as the "fraud-on-the-market theory," has become the driving force for modern class-action securities cases. But some economists have questioned whether this theory makes sense anymore, saying it doesn't account for the sometimes random and arbitrary nature of stock trading.

Pakistan court dismisses Musharraf medical request

A Pakistani court hearing the case against former military ruler Pervez Musharraf on charges of high treason rejected Friday a request that he be allowed to go abroad for treatment, his lawyer and a court official said.

Instead, they said, it issued an arrest warrant for the retired general. But the warrant is "bailable" — meaning he can avoid jail by applying for bail and depositing a bond of 2.5 million rupees (about $20,000). The court said it didn't have the authority to remove his name from the exit control list which restricts him from going abroad.

While Musharraf can't leave the country, it's unlikely he would actually end up in handcuffs immediately and still unclear whether he will ever appear in court — a scene that could be humiliating not just to Musharraf, but to the country's politically powerful military.

The judges' decision is the latest in the legal battles that Musharraf has faced ever since returning to his homeland in March 2013 to take part in the country's elections. Instead of returning to a hero's welcome, he was almost immediately hit with a barrage of cases, threats from the Pakistani Taliban and was disbarred from running in the election.

A lawyer for Musharraf, Mohammed Ali Saif, said the judges ruled that Musharraf must appear in court on Feb. 7.

"We are of the view that no reasonable excuse has been offered to justify the failure of the accused to appear before the court, there is no alternate except to issue a bailable warrant of arrest for the accused," said the court registrar Abdul Ghani Soomro, reading from the court's decision.

Musharraf seized power in a 1999 coup, but became deeply unpopular and was forced to step down in 2008. He later left the country. The high treason case stems from his 2007 decision to impose a state of emergency and detain judges.

Supreme Court Puts Utah Same-Sex Marriage on Hold

The Supreme Court on Monday put same-sex marriages on hold in Utah, at least while a federal appeals court more fully considers the issue.

The court issued a brief order blocking any new same-sex unions in the state.

The order grants an emergency appeal by the state following the Dec. 20 ruling by U.S. District Judge Robert Shelby that the state's ban on same-sex marriage violates gay and lesbian couples' constitutional rights.

More than 900 gay and lesbian couples have married since then.

The high court order will remain in effect until the Denver-based 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals decides whether to uphold Shelby's ruling.

The state's request to the Supreme Court was filed with Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who handles emergency appeals from Utah and the five other states in the 10th Circuit. Sotomayor turned the matter over to the entire court.

The action now shifts to Denver, where the appeals court will consider arguments from the state against same-sex marriage as well as from the three gay and lesbian couples who challenged the ban in support of Shelby's ruling. The appeals court had twice rebuffed the state's plea to stop gay weddings pending appeal.

Pa. court sides with towns in gas drilling fight

The highest court in Pennsylvania, heart of the country's natural gas drilling boom, on Thursday struck down significant portions of a law that limited the power of local governments to determine where the industry can operate _ rules the industry sought from Republican Gov. Tom Corbett and lawmakers.

In a 4-2 decision, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruled the industry-friendly rules set out by the 2012 law violated the state constitution, although the majority did not entirely agree on why they were unconstitutional.

Seven municipalities had challenged the law that grew out of the state's need to modernize 20-year-old drilling laws to account for a Marcellus Shale drilling boom made possible by innovations in technology, most notably horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing. The process, also called fracking, has drawn widespread criticism from environmentalists and many residents living near drilling operations.

"Few could seriously dispute how remarkable a revolution is worked by this legislation upon the existing zoning regimen in Pennsylvania, including residential zones," wrote Chief Justice Ron Castille. He said the law's rules represented an unprecedented "displacement of prior planning, and derivative expectations, regarding land use, zoning, and enjoyment of property."

The high court's decision comes at a time when the energy industry is increasingly able to capture oil and gas from previously unreachable formations and, as a result, is bumping up against suburban and urban expectations of land use in states including Texas, Colorado and Ohio, where a similar legal challenge is underway.

The 2012 law restricted local municipalities' ability to control where companies may place rigs, waste pits, pipelines and compressor and processing stations, although the new zoning rules never went into effect because of court order after the towns sued. A narrowly divided lower court struck them down in 2012, but Corbett appealed, saying lawmakers have clear authority to override local zoning.

Planned Parenthood Asks Supreme Court's Help In Texas

Planned Parenthood is asking the Supreme Court to place Texas' new abortion restrictions on hold.

The group says in a filing with the high court Monday that more than a third of the clinics in Texas have been forced to stop providing abortions since a court order allowed the new restrictions to take effect Friday.

Planned Parenthood says that the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals went too far in overruling a trial judge who blocked the law's provision that requires doctors who perform abortions in clinics to have admitting privileges at a nearby hospital.

The filing was addressed to Justice Antonin Scalia, who oversees emergency matters from Texas.

Judge says Episcopal issues belong in state court

U.S. District Judge C. Weston Houck has ruled for the second time in recent months that legal issues arising from the Episcopal schism in eastern South Carolina belong in state court, not federal court.

Houck dismissed a federal lawsuit late Friday brought by Bishop Charles vonRosenberg, the bishop of parishes remaining with the national Episcopal Church.

The bishop had asked Houck to block Bishop Mark Lawrence, the spiritual head of churches that left the national church, from using the name and symbols of the Episcopal Diocese of South Carolina.

But Houck ruled the issues "are more appropriately before, and will more comprehensively be resolved, in South Carolina state court."

Lawrence and churches in the conservative diocese separated from the more liberal national church last year. Those parishes later sued in state court to protect their use of the diocesan name and symbols and title to a half billion dollars in church property.

In a consent order agreed to by both sides and signed by a state judge earlier this year, Lawrence and those parishes were given the right to use the name and symbols.

Parishes remaining with the national church later tried to move that case to federal court, but Houck ruled in June that doing so would disrupt the balance between state and federal courts.

San Diego, California - Personal Injury Truck Accidents Attorney

With the gas prices rising and for health and fitness reasons, more individuals have looked into biking or walking to save money in their means of transportation. With the increased amount of cyclists and pedestrians, we also see an increased amount of bicycle and pedestrian accidents. Most bicyclist and pedestrian accidents involve distracted or reckless drivers. As drivers, we often don't go out of our way to look out for bicyclists or pedestrians unless we are at a big intersection. Therefore, most of the time the visibility of cyclists and pedestrians is limited and for that, accidents happen if drivers are not careful. An accident involving an automobile versus a bicyclist or pedestrian can turn out to be fatal. Due to the massive weight of a vehicle, and depending on speed, a pedestrian can suffer from permanent disfiguration from this type of an accident. This could leave you with a lifetime of hospital visits and medical bills to pay off. In the worst case scenario, death is the end result. If you find yourself in this situation, it is important to contact a San Diego Bicycle Accident Lawyer as soon as possible.