Group items tagged

Since the passing of Proposition 8, gay rights activists vow to continue their efforts in legalizing same sex marriages in California. Neither side is ready to sit still and rejoice or mourn the decis

This is Google's cache of http://www.twhlaw.com/news_and_articles/feature-article-one.html. It is a snapshot of the page as it appeared on Jul 8, 2010 20:12:35 GMT. The current page could have changed in the meantime. Learn more Text-only versionThese search terms are highlighted: court mathews v eldridge 1976 established balancing test determine process due rejected argument pre deprivation hearing any adverse action cause significant instead once determined will These terms only appear in links pointing to this page: goldberg requires time govt threatens harm action Home Practice Areas Attorneys News & Articles Contact News & Articles 05/25/2010 Environmental Pitfalls for the Non-Environmental Lawyer. 09/ 1/2009 GE's Constitutional Challenges to the UAO Regime Rejected By D.C. District Court 08/ 1/2009 Clean Water Act Jurisdiction Over Excavation Activities: The "Tulloch Rule" Revised More News and Articles GE's Constitutional Challenges to the UAO Regime Rejected By D.C. District Court The UAO Regime Under CERCLA, EPA has two primary methods to effectuate hazardous waste cleanup: (1) it can perform the cleanup itself-paying for the cleanup out of the "Superfund"-and then seek cleanup costs from responsible parties; or (2) it can compel PRPs to perform the cleanup. See 42 U.S.C. §§ 9606(a), 9607(a)(4)(A) (For convenience CERCLA §§ 106(a), 107(a)(4)(A)). In using the latter option, EPA may seek either an order from a federal court compelling a PRP to cleanup the site, or it may issue a UAO ordering the PRP to perform the cleanup upon a finding that "there may be an imminent and substantial endangerment to the public health or welfare or the environment because of an actual or threatened release of hazardous substances from a facility." Id. § 106(a). 10 The UAO is one of EPA's most useful-and, perhaps, coercive-tools to effectuate cleanup of sites contaminated with hazardous substances. Upon issuance of the UAO, PRPs have

Saved! with statutory regulations. All agencies subject to the authority of an APA must follow its specific rulemaking procedures.4 APAs Final.pub (Read-Only) Download (371K) Print (4 pages)Plain HTMLSave in Google Docs Loading... 1 / 4 No matches found 1 2 3 4 http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:g_zo7rPqvNMJ:www.njdc.info/pdf/factsheetAPAs.pdf+Administrative+Procedure+Act+satisfies+due+process&hl=en&gl=us&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESi9mt2etbezUkZukBtfimqFhOn8GDl9zowdLVWcKioBxtsL-G2lqK_YFUXAcQgr0yIboG0JPxIeBS598me1TYm-w4bBcMUjbJ339GeEZ_pL1YXVSawQlJ-hPdJvhOxBDCMESPMd&sig=AHIEtbRidhbCw3FedkVoRmxAD21BDjqWRg

Home > Criminal Appeals Law & Information > California's DNA Testing Procedures Questioned by the U.S. Supreme Court - Protect Your Sixth Amendment Rights Posted On: February 22, 2010 by Southern California Criminal Defense Attorney California's DNA Testing Procedures Questioned by the U.S. Supreme Court - Protect Your Sixth Amendment Rights In 2007, the California Supreme Court held that a DNA expert could testify about evidence from a test he or she did not perform. (People v. Geier (2007) 41 Cal.4th 555). This state has followed a long established practice where supervisors testify about lab tests, instead of technicians who actually tested forensic evidence. However, the validity of the California decision has been questioned by the 2008 United States Supreme Court's ruling, which held that a defendant had a right to demand live testimony at trial from crime lab technicians who actually performed their tests. (Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts (2008) 129 S. Ct. 2527). In particular, the Court has ruled that a trial court violated defendant's rights under the Sixth Amendment during his trial on a charge alleging that he distributed cocaine, when it admitted certificates signed by state laboratory analysts which stated that material police seized was cocaine because the certificates fell within core class of testimonial statements covered by Confrontation Clause. The Court's decision was the latest test of a defendant's Sixth Amendment right to be "confronted with the witnesses against him." The Confrontation clause was revived in 2004 when the justices rejected a prosecutor's use of an absent witness' tape-recorded statement to the police. Justice Scalia writing for the majority of the Court emphasized that when testimonial evidence is at issue, the Constitution gives the defendant a right to confront and to cross-examine the witness. (Crawfowd v. Washington (2004) 541 U.S. 36). Since then, the Supreme Court has issued opinions clarifying what qu

And, the Supreme Court (or at least the right-wing of it) strikes a blow for non-transparency in governmental proceedings...This decision may have far-reaching and chilling effects on the televising of important judicial disputes of our lifetime.