Pa. court sides with towns in gas drilling fight

The highest court in Pennsylvania, heart of the country's natural gas drilling boom, on Thursday struck down significant portions of a law that limited the power of local governments to determine where the industry can operate _ rules the industry sought from Republican Gov. Tom Corbett and lawmakers.

In a 4-2 decision, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruled the industry-friendly rules set out by the 2012 law violated the state constitution, although the majority did not entirely agree on why they were unconstitutional.

Seven municipalities had challenged the law that grew out of the state's need to modernize 20-year-old drilling laws to account for a Marcellus Shale drilling boom made possible by innovations in technology, most notably horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing. The process, also called fracking, has drawn widespread criticism from environmentalists and many residents living near drilling operations.

"Few could seriously dispute how remarkable a revolution is worked by this legislation upon the existing zoning regimen in Pennsylvania, including residential zones," wrote Chief Justice Ron Castille. He said the law's rules represented an unprecedented "displacement of prior planning, and derivative expectations, regarding land use, zoning, and enjoyment of property."

The high court's decision comes at a time when the energy industry is increasingly able to capture oil and gas from previously unreachable formations and, as a result, is bumping up against suburban and urban expectations of land use in states including Texas, Colorado and Ohio, where a similar legal challenge is underway.

The 2012 law restricted local municipalities' ability to control where companies may place rigs, waste pits, pipelines and compressor and processing stations, although the new zoning rules never went into effect because of court order after the towns sued. A narrowly divided lower court struck them down in 2012, but Corbett appealed, saying lawmakers have clear authority to override local zoning.

Anti-whaling activist to testify in US court

A fugitive anti-whaling activist known for confronting Japanese whaling vessels off Antarctica is due to testify about his actions in a U.S. court Wednesday.

Paul Watson, founder of the Oregon-based Sea Shepherd Conservation Society, is expected to take the witness stand in a contempt of court hearing in Seattle.

The Japanese whalers argue that the organization 10 times violated an order barring its vessels from attacking or coming within 500 yards of the whaling ships. They've asked the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to impose fines of $100,000 for each violation, though they suggested the court waive those fines as long as the protesters stop confronting their ships.

The case is part of a long-running fight between the protesters and Japan's whaling fleet, which kills up to 1,000 whales a year, as allowed by the International Whaling Commission.

Japan is permitted to hunt the animals as long as they are killed for research and not commercial purposes, but whale meat not used for study is sold as food in Japan. Critics say that's the real reason for the hunts.

For several years, Sea Shepherd operated anti-whaling campaigns in the Southern Ocean. Activists aboard its vessels would hurl acid and smoke bombs at the whalers and drag ropes in the water to damage their propellers.

NC court dumps speedway's suit over $80M deal

A North Carolina court says it will not revive a lawsuit from one of the country's largest auto racing track operators which says local officials reneged on millions of dollars in tax breaks for a new drag strip.

A three-judge state Court of Appeals panel ruled Tuesday against Speedway Motorsports Inc. and Charlotte Motor Speedway, which sued Cabarrus County.

The companies had threatened to move the 135,000-seat speedway and build a new drag strip somewhere other than the Charlotte region unless they got the tax breaks. They say they decided to build the drag strip and upgrade the speedway after an oral agreement for $80 million in tax breaks.

The appeals court says there was no binding contract since nothing was put in writing until after the drag strip opened.

Judge OKs class-action settlement over Skechers

A federal judge approved a $40 million class-action settlement Monday between Skechers USA Inc. and consumers who bought toning shoes after ads made unfounded claims that the footwear would help people lose weight and strengthen muscles.
U.S. District Judge Thomas B. Russell in Louisville approved the deal, which covers more than 520,000 claims. About 1,000 people eligible for coverage by the settlement opted not to take part.
Those with approved claims will be able to get a maximum repayment for their purchase _ up to $80 per pair of Shape-Ups; $84 per pair of Resistance Runner shoes; up to $54 per pair of Podded Sole Shoes; and $40 per pair of Tone-Ups.
Russell also awarded $5 million for the attorneys in the case to split. Russell ordered that the money cannot come from the $40 million settlement fund set aside for consumers.
Two people that served as the lead plaintiffs in the case will receive payments of $2,500 each.
Russell considered multiple factors in deciding to approve the settlement and found it provides just compensation to the plaintiffs.

Court dismisses lawsuits in power plant deaths

The Colorado Court of Appeals has dismissed lawsuits against three companies in the deaths of five workers at a power plant in 2007.

The appeals court agreed Thursday with a judge that there was no evidence that the companies violated duties or failed to provide adequate warnings of a fire hazard.

The workers died after a fire broke out inside a pipeline at Xcel Energy's Cabin Creek hydroelectric plant near Georgetown, about 40 miles west of Denver. The men were inside the pipeline resealing it at the time.

The workers were trapped in the tunnel when a flammable solvent they were using to clean an epoxy paint sprayer ignited on Oct. 2, 2007.

Families of the men and four injured employees sued KTA-Tator Inc., Structural Integrity Associates Inc. and Graco, Inc., claiming the companies were negligent.

Honolulu court screeners find pet duck in bag

Security screeners at a Honolulu courthouse noticed something moving inside a defendant's bag as it passed through an X-ray machine earlier this week.
After initially refusing to open it, the bag's owner reluctantly revealed that his pet was inside. When he opened the bag, screeners found a live duck and a bottle of beer, Department of Public Safety spokeswoman Toni Schwartz said.
Deputies told Michael Hubbard that his pet and beverage wouldn't be allowed inside Circuit Court, so he left. He returned a short while later and asked that deputies look after his belongings while he went inside for an appointment, Schwartz said, adding that visitors are allowed to leave their things outside at their own risk.

CROSSCOR Valuations & Forensics Inc. - Family Law

At CROSSCOR Valuations & Forensics Inc., we provide expert witness testimony and support for existing or pending family law matters.  Our firm has provided expert witness testimony, business valuations and forensic accounting in numerous family law matters concerning spousal and child support and property valuation, characterization and division.  As experts providing family law and divorce support, we simplify complex income and property accounting issues so that attorneys and non-accountants can easily understand them.

http://www.crosscor.com/services/family-law

Court: Judges cannot indefinitely delay appeals

The Supreme Court says federal judges cannot indefinitely delay a death row inmate's federal appeals to see if the convict can become mentally competent enough to help his lawyer.

The high court unanimously ruled Tuesday against Arizona death row inmate Ernest Gonzales and Ohio death row inmate Sean Carter.

Inmates appealing state death sentences to federal court have a right to a lawyer. But the courts never said whether the inmates have to be mentally competent enough to help their lawyers with their federal appeals. Gonzales and Carter wanted the high court to say that federal judges have discretion to hold up proceedings indefinitely until the inmates are ready.

Justice Clarence Thomas says "at some point, the state must be allowed to defend its judgment of conviction."