Profile cover photo
Profile photo
Paralegal Appeals
9 followers
9 followers
About
Paralegal's posts

Post has attachment
The California Supreme Court has ruled on an employment law case regarding the state's "day of rest" statute, which entitles employees to one day’s rest in seven and prohibits employers to "cause" workers to work more than six in seven days. In its opinion in Mendoza v. Nordstrom, _Cal.4th_ (decided May 8, 2017), the court stated that “a day of rest is guaranteed for each work week,” rather than on a 7-day rolling basis.
In responding to certified questions from the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, the California Supreme Court answered (1) periods of more than six consecutive days of work that stretch across more than one work week are not per se prohibited; (2) the exemption for employees working shifts of six hours or less applies only to those who never exceed six hours of work on any day of the week; and (3) an employer “causes” its employee to go without a day of rest when it induces the employee to forgo rest to which he or she is entitled. http://www.paralegalappeals.com 

The California Supreme Court has ruled on an employment law case regarding the state's "day of rest" statute, which entitles employees to one day’s rest in seven and prohibits employers to "cause" workers to work more than six in seven days. In its opinion in Mendoza v. Nordstrom, _Cal.4th_ (decided May 8, 2017), the court stated that “a day of rest is guaranteed for each work week,” rather than on a 7-day rolling basis.
In responding to certified questions from the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, the California Supreme Court answered (1) periods of more than six consecutive days of work that stretch across more than one work week are not per se prohibited; (2) the exemption for employees working shifts of six hours or less applies only to those who never exceed six hours of work on any day of the week; and (3) an employer “causes” its employee to go without a day of rest when it induces the employee to forgo rest to which he or she is entitled. http://www.paralegalappeals.com 

Post has attachment
We are an appellate service specializing in the researching and writing for attorneys of appellate briefs and petitions for writs of habeas corpus, mandamus and certiorari in all US federal and state courts. Case research for attorneys. Freelance legal research and writing service for lawyers and law firms. Providing legal brief writing services. Paralegal appeals services. http://www.paralegalappeals.com

Post has attachment
We are an appellate service specializing in the researching and writing for attorneys of appellate briefs and petitions for writs of habeas corpus, mandamus and certiorari in all US federal and state courts. Case research for attorneys. Freelance legal research and writing service for lawyers and law firms. Providing legal brief writing services. Paralegal appeals services. http://www.paralegalappeals.com

Post has attachment
The California Supreme Court has ruled on an employment law case regarding the state's "day of rest" statute, which entitles employees to one day’s rest in seven and prohibits employers to "cause" workers to work more than six in seven days. In its opinion in Mendoza v. Nordstrom, Cal.4th (decided May 8, 2017), the court stated that “a day of rest is guaranteed for each work week,” rather than on a 7-day rolling basis.
In responding to certified questions from the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, the California Supreme Court answered (1) periods of more than six consecutive days of work that stretch across more than one work week are not per se prohibited; (2) the exemption for employees working shifts of six hours or less applies only to those who never exceed six hours of work on any day of the week; and (3) an employer “causes” its employee to go without a day of rest when it induces the employee to forgo rest to which he or she is entitled.
Photo

Post has attachment
Does Florida Still Have a Death Penalty?
Recent rulings by the Florida Supreme Court seem to be eliminating the death penalty in Florida absent legislative action.
Last month, the Florida Supreme Court high court ruled in Hurst v. State (SC No. 121947), upon remand from the United States Supreme Court, that juries must unanimously agree to a death sentence before a judge could impose it. The ruling negated a law passed earlier this year requiring at least a 10-2 vote. Now Florida has a death penalty but no legal way to sentence someone to it, at least until the legislature passes a new law that survives future legal challenges.
In the Hurst decision the Florida Supreme Court remanded for a new sentencing hearing. But there are 379 men and four women sitting on death row. Is it possible to grant new sentencing hearings for all of these inmates? The burden of picking new juries and finding witnesses from cases that are 10, 20 years old and older would be a daunting task to say the least. 
Photo

Post has attachment
Does Florida Still Have a Death Penalty?
Recent rulings by the Florida Supreme Court seem to be eliminating the death penalty in Florida absent legislative action.
Last month, the Florida Supreme Court high court ruled in Hurst v. State (SC No. 121947), upon remand from the United States Supreme Court, that juries must unanimously agree to a death sentence before a judge could impose it. The ruling negated a law passed earlier this year requiring at least a 10-2 vote. Now Florida has a death penalty but no legal way to sentence someone to it, at least until the legislature passes a new law that survives future legal challenges.
In the Hurst decision the Florida Supreme Court remanded for a new sentencing hearing. But there are 379 men and four women sitting on death row. Is it possible to grant new sentencing hearings for all of these inmates? The burden of picking new juries and finding witnesses from cases that are 10, 20 years old and older would be a daunting task to say the least. 
Photo

Post has attachment
Our presidential election has put the Electoral College into controversy again.
There is a petition being circulated to encourage the electors to vote for the winner of the popular vote. The issue was not presented to the Supreme Court in Bush v. Gore, but it has been the subject of a Supreme Court decision, which allowed states to empower political parties to require formal pledges from Presidential Electors (Ray v Blair, 343 US 214). Nonetheless, 21 states still do not require their members of the Electoral College to vote for their party's designated candidate. The 24 states that do have requirements issue a small variety of rarely enforced punishments for faithless Electors, including fines and misdemeanors.

Since the founding of the Electoral College, there have been 156 faithless Electors. 71 of these votes were changed because the original candidate died before the day on which the Electoral College cast their votes. Three of the votes were not cast at all as three Electors chose to abstain from casting their Electoral vote for any candidate. The other 82 Electoral votes were changed on the personal initiative of the Elector.


Filing an Appeal? Get started by contacting us today. 212.726.2066. http://www.paralegalappeals.com


Post has attachment
Our presidential election has put the Electoral College into controversy again.
There is a petition being circulated to encourage the electors to vote for the winner of the popular vote. The issue was not presented to the Supreme Court in Bush v. Gore, but it has been the subject of a Supreme Court decision, which allowed states to empower political parties to require formal pledges from Presidential Electors (Ray v Blair, 343 US 214). Nonetheless, 21 states still do not require their members of the Electoral College to vote for their party's designated candidate. The 24 states that do have requirements issue a small variety of rarely enforced punishments for faithless Electors, including fines and misdemeanors.

Since the founding of the Electoral College, there have been 156 faithless Electors. 71 of these votes were changed because the original candidate died before the day on which the Electoral College cast their votes. Three of the votes were not cast at all as three Electors chose to abstain from casting their Electoral vote for any candidate. The other 82 Electoral votes were changed on the personal initiative of the Elector.


Filing an Appeal? Get started by contacting us today. 212.726.2066. http://www.paralegalappeals.com


Post has attachment
Our presidential election has put the Electoral College into controversy again.
There is a petition being circulated to encourage the electors to vote for the winner of the popular vote. The issue was not presented to the Supreme Court in Bush v. Gore, but it has been the subject of a Supreme Court decision, which allowed states to empower political parties to require formal pledges from Presidential Electors (Ray v Blair, 343 US 214). Nonetheless, 21 states still do not require their members of the Electoral College to vote for their party's designated candidate. The 24 states that do have requirements issue a small variety of rarely enforced punishments for faithless Electors, including fines and misdemeanors.

Since the founding of the Electoral College, there have been 156 faithless Electors. 71 of these votes were changed because the original candidate died before the day on which the Electoral College cast their votes. Three of the votes were not cast at all as three Electors chose to abstain from casting their Electoral vote for any candidate. The other 82 Electoral votes were changed on the personal initiative of the Elector.


Filing an Appeal? Get started by contacting us today. 212.726.2066. http://www.paralegalappeals.com

Wait while more posts are being loaded