High court upholds Nevada ethics law
Lawyer Blogs
The Supreme Court on Monday unanimously upheld a Nevada ethics law that governs when lawmakers should refrain from voting on official business because they might have a conflict of interest.
The court reversed a Nevada Supreme Court decision that said elected officials have a constitutional right to vote on official business that the state law violated.
The decision came in the case of Michael Carrigan, a Sparks, Nev., council member who voted on a casino project even though his campaign manager served as a project consultant.
Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for the court, said an elected official's vote "is not his own speech but a mechanical function of government — the commitment of his apportioned share of the legislature's power to the passage or defeat of a particular proposal."
Scalia said conflict-of-interest rules similar to Nevada's "have been commonplace for over 200 years."
The Nevada Commission on Ethics found that Carrigan's vote violated a provision of the ethics law that lays out various relationships that should disqualify an official from voting, including the official's relatives and business associates.
The ethics panel said Carrigan should have abstained from voting because his friend and campaign manager, Carlos Vasquez, also worked as a consultant for the Red Hawk Land Co., which was backing the Lazy 8 casino project.
Related listings
-
Pa. appeals court upholds $188M Wal-Mart verdict
Lawyer Blogs 06/11/2011A $188 million class-action verdict against Wal-Mart Stores Inc. and Sam's Club over payment to employees for rest breaks and off-the-clock work was upheld Friday by a Pennsylvania appeals court. A three-judge Superior Court panel said there was suff...
-
Court sides with Massey in W.Va. mine appeal
Lawyer Blogs 06/10/2011A federal appeals court has sided with the former Massey Energy in a dispute over the company's investigation of last year's deadly Upper Big Branch mine explosion.The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia ruled Friday that Massey is ent...
-
Court says telephone companies must give access
Lawyer Blogs 06/09/2011The Supreme Court says large telephone companies have to provide their competitors discounted access to their network. The high court on Thursday unanimously ruled for Talk America, Inc. in its battle to make AT&T give it cost-based rates for usi...
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.