Court rules against abortion protester's lawsuit
Lawyer Blogs
A federal appeals court in Philadelphia has ruled that an anti-abortion protester arrested near the Liberty Bell in 2007 can't collect damages from park rangers who detained him.
The three-judge panel on Thursday upheld a lower-court ruling to dismiss 32-year-old Michael Marcavage's lawsuit against two Independence National Historic Park rangers. The Philadelphia Daily News reported on the panel's decision.
The suit stemmed from Marcavage's arrest after he refused to move his protest to another area of the park. A federal magistrate convicted the Lansdowne resident of two misdemeanors.
Marcavage appealed and claimed rangers violated his constitutional rights. In 2010, a federal appeals court threw out the misdemeanor convictions. Then Marcavage filed an amended complaint arguing that park rangers were liable for unspecified damages. The court ruled against him.
Related listings
-
Court won't release CA gay marriage trial videos
Lawyer Blogs 02/03/2012A federal appeals court refused Thursday to unseal video recordings of a landmark trial on the constitutionality of California's same-sex marriage ban. Siding with the ban's supporters, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco ruled the...
-
Ex-Calif. teacher in court on molestation charges
Lawyer Blogs 02/01/2012The children at Miramonte Elementary School never complained about their third-grade teacher. Not, authorities said, when he blindfolded them, not when he put tape over their mouths or even placed live cockroaches on their faces. He told them it was ...
-
Conviction and sentence upheld in Palin email case
Lawyer Blogs 01/30/2012A federal appeals court panel has upheld the conviction and sentence of a University of Tennessee student in the hacking of Sarah Palin's email in 2008. The three judge panel in a Monday decision affirmed the conviction of 24-year-old David Kernell. ...
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.