December 16th, 2008
The Supreme Court on Monday, in a 5-4 split decision, handed tobacco companies a stinging defeat. The industry was hoping to put an end to lawsuits alleging deceptive marketing of “light” cigarettes. Instead, the Court ruled that smokers may use state consumer protection laws to bring suit against cigarette makers for the way they have promoted “light” and “low tar” brands, which make up 80% of tobacco sales in the United States. Philip Morris USA argued these lawsuits are barred by the federal cigarette labeling law, which forbids states from regulating any aspect of cigarette advertising that involves smoking and health. The Supreme Court, however, said such regulation did not shield cigarette manufactures from state laws that prohibit deceptive practices. This decision forces tobacco companies to defend dozens of suits filed by smokers across the country. People suing the cigarette makers still must prove that the use of ‘light‘ and ‘lowered tar’ actually violated the states’ anti-fraud laws, but those lawsuits may go forward, Stevens said. Stevens was joined by Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and David Souter, as well as Justice Anthony Kennedy, whose vote often decides the outcome cases in which the Justices are at odds. Chief Justice John Roberts, with Justices Samuel Alito, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas, dissented, with Thomas stating that the lawsuits should be thrown out because they rely on claims about smokers’ health which are the purview of the federal agencies policing smoking advertising. This case is an important barometer for another case pending before the Court, Levine v. Wyeth, concerning the amenability of pharmaceutical manufacturers to state lawsuits for failure to warn users of the dangerous side-effects of the drugs they manufacture and distribute. The Supreme Court today indicated that large manufacturers will not be immune from state lawsuits simply because they are regulated by a federal agency.
No Comments » | 
Misc | 
Permalink
Posted by Tony Coveny
December 16th, 2008
The Three Kings, Bringing Gold, Frankincense, and Myrrh.
On December 16, 2006, Leigh O’Dell of Beasley Allen led the Sanford Pinedo LLP Tuesday Morning call-in Bible Study, focusing on the story of the three kings (Matthew 2:10-12). Leigh taught a wonderful lesson on what the gifts these kings laid at the feet of Jesus symbolized, and what these symbols could teach us. Leigh noted that Gold was, even then, the most precious metal. Gold was the sign of kingship, and by giving gold, the wise men were acknowledging Jesus was King of kings, and Lord of lords. Frankincense, by contrast, was used in temple worship. It was used to offer up prayers of thanksgiving and joy—not for sin sacrifices. It symbolized the joy of Jesus’ birth and divinity of Jesus. Finally, Myrrh, a spice used for embalming, pointed to the coming death of Jesus on the cross. Leigh then turned to the participants, inquiring what each of us would bring to Jesus this Christmas. She suggested the gift of preparation, the gift of surrendering to Christ’s Lordship in our lives, and the gift of service to others. Please join us at Sanford Pinedo LLP in celebrating Jesus’ birthday by giving back to God and our community!
No Comments » | Misc | Permalink
Posted by Tony Coveny
December 1st, 2008
Judge Stone: Probate Court 1
On November 4, Judge Kathy Stone received more than 52.4% of the votes in Harris County, winning by the largest margin of any judicial candidate or incumbent seeking a county or district court bench. Judge Stone was sworn in on Wednesday, November 26, at 12:00 noon as Judge of Probate Court 1. She is the first, of a large number of Democrats to be elected to judicial office in Harris County, to be sworn in. As such, the ceremonial courtroom on the top floor of the Civil Court House in downtown Houston was full to overflow capacity, wit dozens forced to stand in the aisles. This event was rich in both symbolism and substance. “Probate courts hear more than just the probate of wills, will contests, and guardianships. Judges in Probate Court also preside over complex personal injury cases resulting in death or incapacity requiring a guardianship. Even issues most often heard in Family District Court or Civil District can end up in Probate court in certain circumstances. For these reasons, a Probate Court Judge must have a familiarity with many aspects of the law.”
Senior Parner Shelly Sanford with Judge Stone at Reception in the Judge
Judge Stone has nearly 18 years of judicial experience, and the “breadth of experience, the depth of knowledge, and the strength of character to be an effective Probate Judge,” says her campaign chief. She served twice on the 55th Civil District Court, serving from 1991 to 1998. Since then, she has presided over cases as Senior Judge Sitting by Assignment in the Civil, Criminal, and Family District Courts, County Courts-at-Law, and Justice Courts in Harris and surrounding counties. “I have tried nearly every type of case” Judge Stone told the audience attending her swearing–in ceremony. Judge Stone graduated from South Texas College of Law in 1979 and was Assistant Editor-in-Chief of the Law Journal and competed in Moot Court. She has also been named “Woman of Excellence” by the Federation of Professional Women.
No Comments » | Misc | Permalink
Posted by Tony Coveny
