Latest news with #AppellateCourt
Hans India
07-05-2025
- Politics
- Hans India
SC rejects BJP MLA's plea, directs him to surrender in two weeks
Jaipur: The Supreme Court (SC) on Wednesday rejected the Special Leave Petition (SLP) of Baran Anta MLA, Kanwarlal Meena of the BJP, and directed him to surrender before the trial court within two weeks. Meena was earlier sentenced to three years in prison for pointing a pistol at an SDM and destroying government property during a 2005 incident. A SC bench comprising Justices Vikram Nath, Sandeep Mehta, and Sanjay Karol heard the case. Meena's lawyer, Namit Saxena, argued that no revolver had been recovered and therefore, the charge of using criminal force could not be sustained. He also pointed out that the alleged video cassette, said to have been broken and burned, was never recovered. However, the bench rejected all arguments, upholding the findings of the lower courts. On May 1, the Rajasthan High Court upheld the conviction by the Appellate Court (ADJ, Aklera, Jhalawar), which had found Meena guilty of obstructing government work, intimidating officials, and damaging public property. According to the Representation of the People Act, 1951, any lawmaker sentenced to more than two years in prison is disqualified from the legislature. With the High Court upholding his sentence, Meena's legislative membership is under threat. Following the High Court's ruling, the Congress party approached the Assembly Secretary demanding action. A notice was then issued to Meena, requiring him to submit a SCt stay order by 12 noon on May 7. In response, Meena's counsel mentioned the matter before the SC, which had earlier granted a temporary stay on his surrender on May 5, but did not stay the High Court's entire judgment. The case relates to an incident on February 3, 2005, near the Dangipura-Rajgarh turn in Jhalawar, where villagers had blocked the road demanding re-polling for the Khatakhedi Deputy Sarpanch elections. Officials, including then SDM Ramnivas Mehta, IAS probationer Pritam B Yashwant, and Tehsildar Ramkumar, had reached the spot to control the situation. Around half an hour later, Kanwarlal Meena arrived with his associates and allegedly pointed a pistol at the SDM, threatening to kill him if recounting was not announced. When the SDM refused, Meena allegedly snatched and destroyed a video cassette and temporarily took away a digital camera from Pritam, returning it after 20 minutes. Meena was acquitted by the trial court in 2018, but the Appellate Court overturned that decision, convicting him. In rejecting Meena's appeal, the High Court noted that he had identified himself as a political figure during the incident and was expected to uphold law and order, not undermine it. The court also pointed to his criminal background, noting that while he had been acquitted in most of the 15 criminal cases filed against him earlier, such a history could not be ignored.
Gulf Today
19-04-2025
- Gulf Today
Dubai court jails man for assaulting compatriots with knife
The Dubai Criminal Court sentenced an Arab national to three months in jail, to be followed by deportation, for assaulting three compatriots with a knife, in collaboration with another fugitive. The Appellate Court upheld the ruling. The incident occurred inside the victim's vehicle, where the suspect attempted to force the victim to drive to an anonymous destination. The case dates back to April 2024 when a security guard in the Business Bay area reported that three people had been attacked with a knife in a parking lot at his workplace. He stated that he rushed to the scene after hearing screams near the building's parking area, where he found three people bleeding from various parts of their bodies. He added they were holding the suspect, who was having a knife. They allegedly asked him to call an ambulance and the police. The police arrived, arrested the suspect and transported the injured to the hospital. The first victim testified during the interrogations that the suspect had stormed his vehicle, held a knife to his neck, and demanded he drive but he refused, then the second fugitive arrived, repeating the demand after stabbing him in the thigh and verbally abusing him. The victim added that he managed to open the car window and call for help from two colleagues who were leaving work at the same time. They reportedly attempted to rescue him, but the suspects assaulted them, stabbing one in the arm and injuring the other's face. Then, one of the assailants fled, but the victims restrained the other. On being interrogated, the suspect denied any involvement in the crime, claiming that he had arrived at the Business Bay Metro Station with his fugitive friend and waited near a building after the friend told him he was waiting for someone who owed him money and had refused to repay it. After several hours, the first victim appeared, and the suspect and his friend approached his vehicle, where an altercation ensued, during which the fugitive assaulted the victim and then fled. The suspect added that the victim, with the help of two others, detained him and called the police.
Yahoo
09-04-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Connecticut Supreme Court Rejects Alex Jones' Bid To Throw Out $1 Billion Sandy Hook Verdict
Connecticut's highest court upheld a ruling Tuesday that orders conspiracy theorist Alex Jones to pay around $1 billion in defamation damages to the families of a 2012 school shooting that he spent years falsely claiming was fake. In a single sentence ruling, the state's Supreme Court said Jones' 'petition for certification to appeal from the Appellate Court ... is denied.' In 2022, a jury in Waterbury, Connecticut, ruled Jones must pay nearly $1 billion in damages after they heard testimony from the families of those who died in the Sandy Hook school shooting, which left 20 kids and six adults dead. In their testimony, the families described how Jones used his conspiracy platform, Infowars, to routinely harass grief-stricken family members by calling them 'crisis actors' and the shooting 'fake.' Nicole Hockley, whose 6-year-old son Dylan was killed, testified she was sent pictures of dead children by harassers as she mourned the death of her own. 'I got sent pictures of dead kids because [harassers said] as a 'crisis actor' I didn't know what dead kids looked like,' Hockley testified. And parents Mark and Jackie Barden, whose 6-year-old son Daniel was killed, testified they received a letter from someone claiming to have urinated on their son's grave. Another letter threatened to dig up the child's grave. As the families suffered, Infowars traffic spiked on days Jones discussed the shooting. Jones was also ordered to pay $45 million in 2022 to two parents whose 6-year-old child died in the shooting in a separate trial in Texas. Despite the verdicts, Jones has spent years appealing the cases and attempting to wriggle out of paying, including filing for bankruptcy. In December, an appellate court upheld the ruling against Jones in the Connecticut case. The next month, Jones appealed to the state's Supreme Court, arguing he had been stripped of his First Amendment rights when the court imposed 'death penalty sanctions' on him. Tuesday's one-sentence ruling made clear Jones' argument didn't carry weight. Alinor Sterling, an attorney with the law firm Koskoff, Koskoff and Bieder who represents several Sandy Hook families, said the ruling brings Jones one step closer to accountability. 'The Court's ruling brings the Connecticut families another step closer to their goal of holding Alex Jones accountable for the harms he caused and will enable them to press forward with collections proceedings against him,' Sterling said in a statement. Norm Pattis, an attorney who represented Jones at his trial and who that same year said racial slurs with his pants down during a standup comedy set, told HuffPost he hopes Jones appeals to the nation's highest court. 'Somewhere, some place, there is a court that will see the case for the farce it became,' Pattis said in a statement. 'The court of last resort is the United States Supreme Court. I hope Alex petitions.'
Gulf Today
26-02-2025
- Health
- Gulf Today
Patient gets Dhs1 million compensation for medical error at a Dubai hospital
Dubai Appellate Court has issued a ruling compensating an Arab patient with Dhs1 million, after he suffered a severe medical error during a surgery at a private hospital in Dubai, resulting in permanent brain damage and a coma. The Court of First Instance had previously ruled to compensate the patient with Dhs7.5 million, but both the hospital and the patient's family appealed the verdict. The details of the case date back to March 2023, when the patient underwent a surgical procedure using laser to remove a cervical disc and local injection of cortisone, under the supervision of a medical team consisting of a surgeon and an anesthesiologist. After the operation, the patient allegedly experienced serious complications which resulted in a complete brain damage due to oxygen deprivation, causing him to fall into a permanent coma. The patient's family filed a complaint with the Medical Liability Committee at the Dubai Health Authority (DHA) and then with the Higher Medical Liability Committee (HMLC). Both committees affirmed in their reports that a severe medical error had occurred, along with negligence on the part of the anesthesiologist for leaving the operating room before the patient regained consciousness. The report concluded that both the surgeon and the anesthesiologist were held responsible for the error, with a 50% share of responsibility for each. The patient's family filed a compensation claim before the civil court, demanding a compensation of Dhs57 million for the material and moral damages they suffered due to the loss of their primary breadwinner. After examining the case, the Court of First Instance issued a ruling obliging the hospital and the doctors to pay a compensation of Dhs7.5 million, with a legal interest of 5% annually from the date of the ruling until full payment. Following the ruling, both parties filed appeals before the Appellate Court and the plaintiffs demanded an increase in the compensation amount to Dhs57 million, while the appellees challenged the ruling, requesting complete annulment. After examining the appeals, the Appellate Court decided to modify the ruling of the Court of First Instance by reducing the compensation amount to Dhs1 million. The court also ordered the appellees to jointly pay the amount, along with bearing the legal fees. Dr Alaa Nasr, the legal representative of the patient and his family, stated that determining the compensation amount is the court's responsibility, that assesses it based on its estimation of the material and moral damages incurred by the harmed party.
Yahoo
13-02-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Illinois bill looks to minimize private donors' influence on judicial elections
SPRINGFIELD, Ill. (WCIA) —Illinois judicial campaigns have become very expensive, with interest groups and wealthy donors throwing around lots of cash to get their favorite judge on the bench. This has raised questions about the fairness of the election and money's influence on the campaign. Sen. Rachel Ventura (D-Joliet) filed a bill looking to reduce the influence of private donors in Supreme Court and Appellate Court races. This will allow candidates to use public funds instead of interest group funds. She filed the bill in response to the record-breaking amount of money spent in the 2022 Illinois Supreme Court Elections. New Illinois law allows doctors to strengthen chronic pain treatments She said this legislation would keep judicial elections balanced and the candidates wouldn't feel like they are indebted to a single person or organization. 'The goal is to allow all judges to have the same opportunity, ' Ventura said. 'And to get rid of that kind of off-putting feeling that someone is donating to a judge who may then later be making decisions that harm or hurt them or help them.' The 2022 Illinois Supreme Court race spending surpassed $23 million across both sides. PACs, outside interest groups, and even Governor JB Pritzker poured money in campaigns leading up to the election. The bill proposes a public financing program for Supreme Court and Appellate Court candidates through the Judicial Election Democracy Trust Fund. The idea comes with a pretty big price tag. Under Ventura's proposal, the fund will contain an initial $40 million from the state's General Revenue Fund for candidate use if they choose to opt-in to the public fund for their campaign spending. DOJ sues Illinois, Chicago over 'sanctuary city' laws Kent Redfield, Professor Emeritus of Political Science at the University of Illinois Springfield, sees this bill as a well-meaning idea, but wouldn't be effective due to the voluntary option of it. 'The problem with public financing is that it only works if candidates actually use it.' Redfield said 'But if your opponent is getting millions from independent groups, you can't afford to just rely on public funds.' With Illinois's current law on expenditure campaigns, the 2010 Citizen United vs. FEC ruling allows unlimited independent expenditures for corporations or unions with an emphasis on free speech. Redfield, who has done extensive research on money in politics and campaign finance, said the ruling has changed how the judicial race is run. 'Ever since Citizens United, judicial elections have turned into high-stakes political battles, the idea that judges are above politics is just not reality anymore,' Redfield said. 'Now, outside groups can spend unlimited amounts, and that money isn't just coming from local donors—it's national, ideological, and often hidden.' Ethics advocate groups said public financing is one step in avoiding corruption in the court systems. Alisa Kaplan, executive director of Reform for Illinois, said this bill allows judges to be impartial compared to how the current law is written. Illinois lawmakers react to Madigan convictions in corruption trial 'The way judicial campaigns are currently funded it really allows for special interest groups to have potentially a lot of influence on who our judges are and how they make decisions, and that's just not how anybody wants courts to run,' Kaplan said. 'You want the decisions that they make to be based on the arguments that they see before the court. You don't want them thinking about who's funding their campaign.' Several states across the nation publicly finance political campaigns such as Arizona and Maine, and a few are considering it for judicial races. With fewer candidates on the ballot for Supreme Court and Appellate Court elections, many see public finance as the most suitable option. With $40 million coming from the General Revenue Fund, the proposal raised eyebrows given the state's budget problem. 'The public response to that generally is 'I don't want my tax dollars going to politicians to run campaigns,'' Redfield said 'The fact that we have a budget deficit, we're looking at a very tough fiscal year. The idea of taking $40 million out and not giving it to schools or universities or early childhood education, it's not a very attractive time.' But Kaplan said the amount is smaller compared to the state's overall budget. 'It's 0.08% of the budget, the way the bill is written right now. ' Kaplan said. ' So an extremely, extremely small part of the overall Illinois budget for something that could really have a huge impact on how cases are decided and how justice is distributed in the state of Illinois.' Ventura believed this bill will start a conversation on fairness in the Illinois judicial system. 'I think Illinois is well on its way to exploring this, but we need to hear from our residents. What would they prefer? Because, as I said, candidate campaigns are very expensive,' Ventura said. 'But we want to make sure that none of our candidates are bought and paid for.' Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
