US court overturns ruling against Muslim charities
Lawyer Blogs
A US court overturned Friday a ruling that ordered Muslim charities with alleged links to the Palestinian Hamas movement to compensate the family of a US teenager killed in the West Bank.
The groups had been ordered in a 2004 civil case to pay 156 million dollars to the family of 17-year-old David Boim, killed in 1996 in an attack. A federal appeals court ruled Friday that the groups' role was not fully established.
It ordered a new trial to examine more closely the links between the organizations and the boy's death.
"The Boims will have to demonstrate an adequate causal link between the death of David Boim and the actions" of the groups, the court ruling said.
"This will require evidence that the conduct of each defendant, be it direct involvement with or support of Hamas's terrorist activities or indirect support of Hamas or its affiliates, helped bring about the terrorist attack that ended David Boim's life."
The groups had been charged with taking part in terrorism by aiding or financing Hamas, a powerful Islamist movement in the Palestinian territories.
"The Boims' theory ... was that in promoting, raising money for, and otherwise working on behalf of Hamas, these defendants had helped to fund, train, and arm the terrorists who had killed their son," the ruling said.
The defendants included the American Muslim Society and the Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development, which was the biggest Muslim charity in the United States until it was outlawed after the attacks of September 11, 2001.
The foundation also faces separate criminal charges for alleged links with Hamas. It is charged with giving 36 million dollars to committees controlled by the movement from 1992 to 2001.
A leading US Muslim rights group, the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), welcomed the appeal court's decision Friday.
"This landmark ruling is a strong rejection of the recent disturbing trend of political lawsuits against American Muslims who have committed no crime other than providing humanitarian aid to Palestinians," it said in a statement.
"CAIR deplores the murder of David Boim and hopes that the actual wrong-doers are brought to justice."
Related listings
-
Attorney Wants Criminal Charges Against Insurer
Lawyer Blogs 12/23/2007[##_1L|1161633210.jpg|width="101" height="102" alt=""|_##]The lawyer for California teen Nataline Sarkisyan charged today that the only reason Cigna Health Care officials changed their minds and approved a liver transplant for the desperate girl was ...
-
Law Firm to Investigate MN Bridge Collapse
Lawyer Blogs 12/21/2007The state legislature has hired a Minneapolis law firm to help in an investigation of the 35W bridge collapse, according to media reports. The members of a joint bipartisan bridge investigation committee retained Minneapolis-based Gray Plant Mo...
-
U.S. judge approves $3.2 bln in Tyco settlements
Lawyer Blogs 12/20/2007[##_1L|1402528843.jpg|width="127" height="85" alt=""|_##]A federal judge on Wednesday approved settlements worth $3.2 billion for investors who sued Tyco International Ltd following an accounting scandal that led to the imprisonment of ex-chief Denni...
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.