High court is blocked from case over investments
Legal News Center
The Supreme Court tossed itself off a big case Monday.
The court couldn't take up an apartheid dispute involving some of the nation's largest companies because too many of the justices had investments or other ties with those corporate giants.
It appeared to be the first time in at least a quarter-century that the justices' financial holdings prevented them from taking a case.
The result is that a lawsuit will go forward accusing dozens of corporations of violating international law by assisting South Africa's former apartheid government. The companies and the Bush administration had asked the court to intervene, arguing that the lawsuit was damaging international relations, threatening to hurt South Africa's economic development and punishing the companies using a fuzzy legal concept.
Four of the nine justices sat out the court's consideration of the case. Federal law calls for at least six to hear any case.
Short of the required number, the court took the only path available to it and upheld an appeals court ruling allowing the lawsuit to proceed.
Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Samuel Alito, Stephen Breyer and Anthony Kennedy provided no explanation for their decision not to take part in the case.
But those justices have ties to Bank of America Corp., Bristol-Myers Squibb Co., Colgate-Palmolive Co., Credit Suisse, Exxon Mobil Corp., Hewlett-Packard Co., IBM and Nestle SA, among nearly three dozen companies that asked the high court to step in.
Related listings
-
Court weighs whether to restrict 'business method' patents
Legal News Center 05/09/2008Is a baseball pitcher's method for throwing a curveball patentable? How about a chiropractor's techniques?A federal appeals court wrestled with those kinds of questions Thursday when it considered placing restrictions on patent protections for busine...
-
Court upholds sentence for Ala. police officer
Legal News Center 05/06/2008[##_1L|1372947792.jpg|width="130" height="130" alt=""|_##]A federal appeals court has upheld the conviction and 10-month sentence of an Alabama police officer for lying about a prisoner injured during arrest. A federal judge sentenced Jason Hardy Hun...
-
Ga. parole board holds hearing for convicted killer
Legal News Center 05/05/2008A clemency hearing is under way for a convicted Georgia killer whose execution would be the first since the U.S. Supreme Court found lethal injection constitutional.The Georgia Board of Pardons and Paroles convened Monday to hear the case of William ...
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.