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...
Illinois Work Injury Lawyers – Krol, Bongiorno & Given, LTD.
Accidents in the workplace are often caused by unsafe work conditions arising from ignoring safety rules, overlooking maintenance or other negligence of those in management. While we are one of the largest firms in Illinois dedicated solely to the representation of injured workers, we pride ourselves on the personal, one-on-one approach we deliver to each client.
Work accidents can cause serious injuries and sometimes permanent damage. Some extremely serious work injuries can permanently hinder a person’s ability to get around and continue their daily duties. Factors that affect one’s quality of life such as place of work, relationships with friends and family, and social standing can all be taken away quickly by a work injury. Although, you may not be able to recover all of your losses, you may be entitled to compensation as a result of your work injury. Krol, Bongiorno & Given, LTD. provides informed advocacy in all kinds of workers’ compensation claims, including:
• Injuries to the back and neck, including severe spinal cord injuries
• Serious head injuries
• Heart problems resulting from workplace activities
• Injuries to the knees, elbows, shoulders and other joints
• Injuries caused by repetitive movements
For Illinois Workers’ Compensation claims, you will ALWAYS cheat yourself if you do not hire an experienced attorney. When you hire Krol, Bongiorno & Given, Ltd, you will have someone to guide you through the process, and when it is time to settle, we will add value to your case IN EXCESS of our fee. In the last few years, employers and insurance carriers have sought to advance the argument that when you settle a case without an attorney, your already low settlement should be further reduced by 20% so that you do not get a “windfall.” Representing yourself in Illinois is a lose-lose proposition.