Court rules for Utah city in religious marker case
Lawyer Blogs
The Supreme Court ruled unanimously Wednesday that a small religious group cannot force a city in Utah to place a granite marker in a local park that already is home to a Ten Commandments display.
In a case involving the Salt Lake City-based Summum, the court said that governments can decide what to display in a public park without running afoul of the First Amendment.
Pleasant Grove City, Utah, rejected the group's marker, prompting a federal lawsuit that argued that a city can't allow some private donations of displays in its public park and reject others. The federal appeals court in Denver agreed.
In his opinion for the court, Justice Samuel Alito distinguished the Summum's case from efforts to prevent groups from speaking in public parks, which ordinarily would violate the First Amendment's free speech guarantee.
Alito said "the display of a permanent monument in a public park" requires a different analysis.
Because monuments in public parks help define a city's identity, "cities and other jurisdictions take some care in accepting donated monuments," he said.
Related listings
-
Court will rule in dispute over 8-foot cross
Lawyer Blogs 02/24/2009The Supreme Court agreed Monday to step into a long-running legal fight over an 8-foot cross that stands as a war memorial in the vast Mojave National Preserve in California. The justices said that in court arguments set for this fall, they will cons...
-
Barry Bonds' personal trainer ordered to court
Lawyer Blogs 02/24/2009A federal judge has ordered Barry Bonds' personal trainer, Greg Anderson, to court to disclose whether he intends to testify at the slugger's trial next month. U.S. District Judge Susan Illston scheduled a hearing for Wednesday morning and ordered th...
-
Court rules against al-Qaida member, a US citizen
Lawyer Blogs 02/23/2009The Supreme Court won't review the conviction of a Virginia man for joining al-Qaida and plotting to assassinate then-President George W. Bush. The court said Monday that it will leave undisturbed the conviction of Ahmed Omar Abu Ali, despite an appe...
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.