High court won't hear casinos-racetracks dispute
Court Alerts
The Supreme Court is staying out a fight between Illinois' casinos and horse tracks over a state law that cropped up in the impeachment and indictment of former Gov. Rod Blagojevich.
The casinos object to a law that forces them to transfer of millions of dollars to ailing horse tracks.
Last year, the state Supreme Court unanimously upheld the law. The high court let that ruling stand Monday without comment.
The renewal of the law in 2008 figures in the case against Blagojevich. FBI wiretaps on telephones in Blagojevich's home and the governor's office showed an alleged effort by the then-governor to shake down a racetrack owner for a sizable campaign contribution while the bill was pending. A lawyer for the owner, John Johnston, has said the contribution was not made.
Four secretly recorded conversations about the issue were played at Blagojevich's impeachment trial in the state Senate.
Related listings
-
Court won't hear case of man with porn on computer
Court Alerts 06/08/2009The Supreme Court won't stop Pennsylvania officials from prosecuting a man whose computer was found to contain child pornography while it was at Circuit City being upgraded. Kenneth Sodomsky wants the high court to suppress the videos found on his co...
-
NYC club bouncer guilty in Boston student's death
Court Alerts 06/04/2009A Manhattan nightclub bouncer has been convicted of first-degree murder in the slaying of a graduate student from Boston. Darryl Littlejohn looked straight ahead as the jury verdict was read Wednesday.The 44-year-old parolee faces up to life in priso...
-
Court upholds Navy cancellation of A-12 aircraft
Court Alerts 06/03/2009Boeing Co. and General Dynamics Corp. must pay the government $2.8 billion to settle a nearly two-decade dispute over the cancellation of a Navy contract for a stealth aircraft, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ruled Tuesday. The Nav...
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.