Appeals court again rules against Mojave cross
Lawyer Blogs
[##_1L|1212083071.jpg|width="120" height="88" alt=""|_##]A federal appeals court on Thursday invalidated a land-exchange that sought to preserve an 8-foot tall cross in the Mojave National Preserve. The Christian symbol has been at the center of a long-running legal battle, reaching the appeals court three times. It also was the subject of language inserted in a defense appropriations bill that transferred government ownership of an acre of land to the Veterans of Foreign Wars in an effort to end government sponsorship of religious symbols on public land. The VFW said the cross was memorial for World War I veterans.
But the ruling by the 9th U.S. District Court of Appeals on Thursday upheld a lower court's ruling that said the land transfer was a sham. The appeals court had ruled before the land transfer that the cross was unconstitutional.
Judge M. Margaret McKeown, writing for the unanimous three-judge panel, said that "carving out a tiny parcel of property in the midst of this vast preserve—like a donut hole with the cross atop it—will do nothing to minimize the impermissible governmental endorsement" of the religious symbol.
Peter Eliasberg, an attorney with the ACLU, said his organization sued to remove the cross from its remote resting place outside Barstow because it was clearly a religious item being supported by the federal government.
"I hope this stops the litigation and the waste of taxpayers money," Eliasberg said.
Related listings
-
D.C. Asks Supreme Court to Back Gun Ban
Lawyer Blogs 09/05/2007[##_1L|1131661968.jpg|width="130" height="93" alt=""|_##]The District today asked the Supreme Court to uphold the city's ban on private ownership of handguns, saying the appeals court decision that overturned the law "drastically departs from the mai...
-
Ruling triggers a rush to gay marriages in Iowa
Lawyer Blogs 08/31/2007[##_1L|1362722006.jpg|width="130" height="130" alt=""|_##]Gay couples lined up before dawn on Friday to apply for marriage licenses after an Iowa judge scuttled the state's law against same-sex marriage. Two Iowa State University students, Sean Fritz...
-
Court says FirstEnergy cost deferrals problematic
Lawyer Blogs 08/30/2007[##_1L|1295780485.jpg|width="130" height="90" alt=""|_##]An Ohio court has ruled that state regulators violated the law by allowing FirstEnergy Corp to raise future distribution rates to offset more than $150 million of fuel costs, the company said o...
Grounds for Divorce in Ohio - Sylkatis Law, LLC
A divorce in Ohio is filed when there is typically “fault” by one of the parties and party not at “fault” seeks to end the marriage. A court in Ohio may grant a divorce for the following reasons:
• Willful absence of the adverse party for one year
• Adultery
• Extreme cruelty
• Fraudulent contract
• Any gross neglect of duty
• Habitual drunkenness
• Imprisonment in a correctional institution at the time of filing the complaint
• Procurement of a divorce outside this state by the other party
Additionally, there are two “no-fault” basis for which a court may grant a divorce:
• When the parties have, without interruption for one year, lived separate and apart without cohabitation
• Incompatibility, unless denied by either party
However, whether or not the the court grants the divorce for “fault” or not, in Ohio the party not at “fault” will not get a bigger slice of the marital property.