Court rules against long-distance companies
Headline News
The Supreme Court ruled Monday that a collection agency with no financial stake in a case can sue on behalf of its customers.
The 5-4 decision addresses a basic legal point, that courts can only hear cases when plaintiffs suffer actual injuries that are traceable to a defendant's conduct.
In the case before the court, APCC Services Inc. is trying to collect from Sprint Communications Co. and AT&T Inc. for coinless long-distance calls over the networks of Sprint and AT&T.
APCC provides billing and collection services on behalf of pay-phone service providers.
Writing for the majority, Justice Stephen Breyer said APCC may pursue the claim, even though it has promised to turn over any money from the lawsuit to pay-phone service providers.
A federal appeals court said the case could go forward because the pay-phone providers transferred the compensation claims to the collection agency and agreed to finance APCC's lawsuit. Breyer agreed, saying that for centuries, courts have found ways to allow those to whom compensation claims are assigned to bring suit.
In dissent, Chief Justice John Roberts said APCC has "nothing to gain from their lawsuit" and that under settled legal principles, that fact required dismissal of their complaint. Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito joined the dissent.
Last year, the Supreme Court ruled that pay-phone companies that complained they hadn't been adequately compensated could sue long-distance carriers.
Related listings
-
JC law firm, state reach pension suit settlement
Headline News 06/19/2008A Johnson City law firm will pay $100,000 to the state and has agreed to help authorities in their probe of the firm's founder, John Hogan, to end an investigation by Attorney General Andrew Cuomo into whether lawyers were inappropriately receiving s...
-
$75M settlement meant to punish Milberg law firm
Headline News 06/18/2008The Milberg law firm has admitted former partners paid about $11.3 million in kickbacks to professional plaintiffs in class-action cases that brought it roughly $239 million in legal fees, the U.S. attorney's office said.The admission came as part of...
-
New trial for official in Abramoff scandal
Headline News 06/17/2008The first Bush administration official convicted in the Jack Abramoff lobbying scandal is entitled to a new trial, a federal appeals court ruled Tuesday.David Safavian, the former chief of staff for the General Services Administration, was convicted ...
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.