<rss version="2.0" xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/" xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:trackback="http://madskills.com/public/xml/rss/module/trackback/">
    <channel>
        <title>DAILY COURT REVIEW</title> 
        <link>http://www.dailycourtreview.com</link> 
        <description>RSS feeds for DAILY COURT REVIEW</description> 
        <ttl>60</ttl> <item>
    <comments>http://www.dailycourtreview.com/Default.aspx?tabid=66&amp;articleType=ArticleView&amp;articleId=11534#Comments</comments> 
    <slash:comments>0</slash:comments> 
    <wfw:commentRss>http://www.dailycourtreview.com/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=66&amp;ModuleID=1140&amp;ArticleID=11534</wfw:commentRss> 
    <trackback:ping>http://www.dailycourtreview.com/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=11534&amp;PortalID=0&amp;TabID=66</trackback:ping> 
    <title>Senate kills immigration reform</title> 
    <link>http://www.dailycourtreview.com/Default.aspx?tabid=66&amp;articleType=ArticleView&amp;articleId=11534</link> 
    <description>&lt;P&gt;&lt;FONT size=4&gt;The Senate drove a stake Thursday through President Bush’s plan to legalize millions of unlawful immigrants, likely postponing major action on immigration until after the 2008 elections.&lt;BR&gt;The bill’s supporters fell 14 votes short of the 60 needed to limit debate and clear the way for final passage of the legislation, which critics assailed as offering amnesty to illegal immigrants. The vote was 46 to 53 in favor of limiting the debate.&lt;BR&gt;Senators in both parties said the issue is so volatile that Congress is highly unlikely to revisit it this fall or next year, when the presidential election will increasingly dominate American politics.&lt;BR&gt;A similar effort collapsed in the Congress last year, and the House has not bothered with an immigration bill this year, awaiting Senate action.&lt;BR&gt;The vote was a stinging setback for Bush, who advocated the bill as an imperfect but necessary fix of current immigration practices in which many illegal immigrants use forged documents or lapsed visas to live and work in the United States.&lt;BR&gt;It was a victory for Republican conservatives who criticized the bill’s provisions to establish pathways to lawful status for many of the estimated 12 million illegal immigrants. &lt;BR&gt;The bill would have toughened border security and instituted a new system for weeding out illegal immigrants from workplaces. It would have created a new guest worker program and allowed millions of illegal immigrants to obtain legal status if they briefly returned home.&lt;BR&gt;Bush, making a last-ditch bid to salvage the bill, called senators early Thursday morning to urge their support. Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff and Commerce Secretary Carlos Gutierrez approached senators as they entered and left the chamber shortly before the vote.&lt;BR&gt;“We have been in contact with members of Congress over the past couple of days and the president has made it clear that this is important to him,” White House spokesman Tony Snow said before the vote.&lt;BR&gt;But GOP conservatives led the opposition. They repeatedly said the government must secure the borders before allowing millions of illegal aliens a path to legal status.&lt;BR&gt;“Americans feel that they are losing their country ... to a government that has seemed to not have the competence or the ability to carry out the things that it says it will do,” Sen. Bob Corker, R-Tenn., said in the debate’s final hour.&lt;BR&gt;Sen. Elizabeth H. Dole, R-N.C., said many Americans “don’t have confidence” that borders, especially with Mexico, will be significantly tightened. “It’s not just promises but proof that the American people want,” Dole said.&lt;BR&gt;The bill’s backers said border security and accommodations must go hand in hand.&lt;BR&gt;“Year after year, we’ve had the broken borders,” said Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass. “Year after year, we’ve seen the exploitation of workers. Year after year, we’ve seen the people who live in fear within our own borders. This is the opportunity to change it. Now is the time.”&lt;BR&gt;Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., told colleagues that if the bill faltered, the political climate almost surely would not allow a serious reconsideration until 2009 or later. It would be highly unlikely, she said, “in the next few years to fix the existing system... We are so close.”&lt;/FONT&gt;&lt;/P&gt;</description> 
    <dc:creator>Michael</dc:creator> 
    <pubDate>Fri, 29 Jun 2007 05:00:00 GMT</pubDate> 
    <guid isPermaLink="false">f1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:11534</guid> 
    
</item>
<item>
    <comments>http://www.dailycourtreview.com/Default.aspx?tabid=66&amp;articleType=ArticleView&amp;articleId=11357#Comments</comments> 
    <slash:comments>0</slash:comments> 
    <wfw:commentRss>http://www.dailycourtreview.com/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=66&amp;ModuleID=1140&amp;ArticleID=11357</wfw:commentRss> 
    <trackback:ping>http://www.dailycourtreview.com/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=11357&amp;PortalID=0&amp;TabID=66</trackback:ping> 
    <title>First quarter economic growth at 0.7 percent</title> 
    <link>http://www.dailycourtreview.com/Default.aspx?tabid=66&amp;articleType=ArticleView&amp;articleId=11357</link> 
    <description>The economy limped ahead at just a 0.7 percent pace in the first quarter, the slowest in more than four years, as some businesses clamped down on spending given uncertainties about the severity of the housing slump.&lt;BR&gt;The Commerce Department’s new reading on gross domestic product for the January-to-March period, released Thursday, was a slight upgrade from the 0.6 percent growth rate estimated a month ago. But it still fell short of economists’ forecasts for a 0.8 percent pace and will probably turn out to be the weakest point for the economy this year.&lt;BR&gt;“Companies were really watching their cash,” said Oscar Gonzalez, economist at John Hancock Financial Services.&lt;BR&gt;Gross domestic product measures the value of all goods and services produced in the United States. It is considered the best barometer of the country’s economic standing. Although businesses turned cautious, consumer spending remained sturdy, preventing the economy from stalling out entirely.&lt;BR&gt;Even though the economy slowed in the first quarter, an inflation gauge picked up speed.&lt;BR&gt;The inflation gauge tied to the GDP report and closely watched by the Federal Reserve showed that core prices - excluding food and energy - rose at a rate of 2.4 percent in the first quarter. That was higher that previously estimated and was faster than the 1.8 percent pace in the fourth quarter.&lt;BR&gt;The Fed has said that inflation poses the biggest potential danger to the economy. The new inflation reading was outside the central bank’s comfort zone, which ranges from 1 percent to 2 percent, and was an “unpleasant surprise for the Fed,” said Nariman Behravesh, chief economist at Global Insight.&lt;BR&gt;In other economic news, fewer people signed up for unemployment insurance last week, a sign the national job climate remains healthy. The Labor Department reported that new applications for jobless benefits dropped by 13,000 to 313,000 last week.&lt;BR&gt;The economy’s feeble 0.7 percent growth rate marked a significant loss of momentum from the 2.5 percent pace logged in the final quarter of last year. For nearly a year, the economy has been enduring a stretch of subpar economic growth mostly blamed on the housing slump.&lt;BR&gt;However, Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke has said other forces that figured prominently into the first-quarter’s anemic performance - including a bloated trade deficit, cutbacks by businesses in inventory investment and weak federal defense spending - “seem likely to be at least partially reversed in the near term.”&lt;BR&gt;There have been signs in more current economic reports that the economy is emerging from its nearly yearlong sluggish spell. Bernanke is among the economists predicting a rebound.&lt;BR&gt;Economic growth in the April-to-June quarter could clock in anywhere from a 2.3 percent to better than a 3 percent pace.&lt;BR&gt;Economists are anticipating the bounce back even though they expect the housing market to continue to be sour.&lt;BR&gt;The housing market nose-dived last year after a five-year boom.&lt;BR&gt;Investment in home building was slashed by 15.8 percent, on an annualized basis, in the first quarter. That was a deeper cut than estimated a month ago but wasn’t as severe as the 19.8 percent annualized drop seen in the final quarter of last year. Economists predict there will be more pain ahead.&lt;BR&gt;Facing uncertainties about the economy, businesses cut inventory investment as they tried to make sure unsold stocks didn’t get out of line with customer demand. That lopped off nearly a percentage point from first quarter GDP. The trade deficit also weighed on GDP in the first quarter, though slightly less so than previously estimated. That was the main reason the first quarter was upgraded to a 0.7 percent growth rate from the 0.6 percent pace reported a month ago.&lt;BR&gt;Cuts in federal spending also contributed to the weak first-quarter showing.&lt;BR&gt;As businesses tightened the belt, their profits gained ground.&lt;BR&gt;One measure showed after-tax profits rising 1.7 percent in the first quarter. That was better than estimated a month ago and was an improvement from the 0.8 percent rise logged in the fourth quarter.&lt;BR&gt;Consumers pretty much carried the economy in the first quarter; their spending kept the economy from stalling out altogether.&lt;BR&gt;Consumer spending grew at a brisk 4.2 percent pace for the second quarter in a row.&lt;BR&gt;One of the reasons consumers have remained resilient is because the job climate has stayed healthy despite the economic slowdown. The unemployment rate is at a relatively low 4.5 percent.&lt;BR&gt;Even so, the public is giving President Bush low marks for his economic stewardship. Only 37 percent approve of his handling of the economy, tying a record low set in November 2005, according to an AP-Ipsos poll.&lt;BR&gt;In another report, the United States continued to be the world’s largest debtor country with foreigners in 2006 owning $2.54 trillion more in U.S. assets, such as stocks, bonds and real estate, than Americans owned in foreign assets. In 2005, the investment gap totaled $2.24 trillion, the Commerce Department said.&lt;BR&gt;On the Net:&lt;BR&gt;GDP report: &lt;A href=&quot;https://www.esa.doc.gov/&quot;&gt;https://www.esa.doc.gov/&lt;/A&gt;</description> 
    <dc:creator>Michael</dc:creator> 
    <pubDate>Fri, 29 Jun 2007 05:00:00 GMT</pubDate> 
    <guid isPermaLink="false">f1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:11357</guid> 
    
</item>
<item>
    <comments>http://www.dailycourtreview.com/Default.aspx?tabid=66&amp;articleType=ArticleView&amp;articleId=11356#Comments</comments> 
    <slash:comments>0</slash:comments> 
    <wfw:commentRss>http://www.dailycourtreview.com/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=66&amp;ModuleID=1140&amp;ArticleID=11356</wfw:commentRss> 
    <trackback:ping>http://www.dailycourtreview.com/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=11356&amp;PortalID=0&amp;TabID=66</trackback:ping> 
    <title>High court blocks Texas execution</title> 
    <link>http://www.dailycourtreview.com/Default.aspx?tabid=66&amp;articleType=ArticleView&amp;articleId=11356</link> 
    <description>A divided Supreme Court on Thursday blocked the execution of a Texas killer whose lawyers argued that he should not be put to death because he is mentally ill.&lt;BR&gt;The court ruled 5-4 in the case of Scott Louis Panetti, who shot his in-laws to death 15 years ago in front of his wife and young daughter.&lt;BR&gt;The convicted murderer says that he suffers from a severe documented illness that is the source of gross delusions. “This argument, we hold, should have been considered,” said Justice Anthony Kennedy, who wrote the majority opinion.&lt;BR&gt;Panetti’s lawyers wanted the court to determine that people who cannot understand the connection between their crime and punishment because of mental illness may not be executed.&lt;BR&gt;The Eighth Amendment of the Constitution bars “the execution of a person who is so lacking in rational understanding that he cannot comprehend that he is being put to death because of the crime he was convicted of committing,” they said in court papers.&lt;BR&gt;In dissent, Justice Clarence Thomas said that Panetti had petitioned the federal courts twice in his case, but that the law allows only one petition.&lt;BR&gt;“The court bends over backwards to allow Panetti” to bring his current claim, despite no evidence that his condition has worsened, or even changed, since 1995, Thomas wrote.&lt;BR&gt;One of Panetti’s lawyers, Scott Hampton of Austin, Texas, said he was relieved.&lt;BR&gt;“Executing Scott Panetti would have been a mindless, meaningless, miserable spectacle,” said Hampton.&lt;BR&gt;Siding with Kennedy in the majority were Justices John Paul Stevens, David Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer.&lt;BR&gt;Joining Thomas in dissent were Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Antonin Scalia and Samuel Alito.&lt;BR&gt;Texas said the court should reject Panetti’s appeal on procedural grounds. But it also argued that the court should set a tougher standard for mental illness exceptions to capital punishment. Only if a Death Row inmate “lacks the capacity to recognize that his punishment both is the result of his being convicted of capital murder and will cause his death” should his execution be halted, the state said. Panetti is competent on that basis, it said.&lt;BR&gt;Panetti was condemned for the September 1992 slayings of his estranged wife’s parents, Joe Alvarado, 55, and Amanda Alvarado, 56, at their Fredericksburg home in the Texas Hill Country. His wife was living with them at the time. A week earlier she obtained a court order to keep him away.&lt;BR&gt;His wife and 3-year-old daughter, sprayed with blood when Panetti shot his in-laws, were held hostage until he surrendered after a lengthy standoff with police. He blamed it all on “Sarge,” one of his multiple personalities.&lt;BR&gt;A former ranch hand and native of Hayward, Wis., Panetti had a history of mental problems before his conviction, recording 14 hospital stays over 11 years.&lt;BR&gt;Four courts have said he was competent when he fired his trial lawyers. A jury and two courts rejected his defense of not guilty by reason of insanity. He personally argued that only an insane person could prove the insanity defense, dressing in cowboy clothing and submitting an initial witness list that included Jesus Christ and John F. Kennedy.&lt;BR&gt;Then-Justice Lewis Powell said 20 years ago that a person may not be put to death if he cannot perceive “the connection between his crime and his punishment.”&lt;BR&gt;The case is Panetti v. Quarterman, 06-6407.</description> 
    <dc:creator>Michael</dc:creator> 
    <pubDate>Fri, 29 Jun 2007 05:00:00 GMT</pubDate> 
    <guid isPermaLink="false">f1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:11356</guid> 
    
</item>
<item>
    <comments>http://www.dailycourtreview.com/Default.aspx?tabid=66&amp;articleType=ArticleView&amp;articleId=11355#Comments</comments> 
    <slash:comments>0</slash:comments> 
    <wfw:commentRss>http://www.dailycourtreview.com/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=66&amp;ModuleID=1140&amp;ArticleID=11355</wfw:commentRss> 
    <trackback:ping>http://www.dailycourtreview.com/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=11355&amp;PortalID=0&amp;TabID=66</trackback:ping> 
    <title>Senate kills reform legislation</title> 
    <link>http://www.dailycourtreview.com/Default.aspx?tabid=66&amp;articleType=ArticleView&amp;articleId=11355</link> 
    <description>&lt;P&gt;The Senate drove a stake Thursday through President Bush’s plan to legalize millions of unlawful immigrants, likely postponing major action on immigration until after the 2008 elections.&lt;BR&gt;The bill’s supporters fell 14 votes short of the 60 needed to limit debate and clear the way for final passage of the legislation, which critics assailed as offering amnesty to illegal immigrants. The vote was 46 to 53 in favor of limiting the debate.&lt;BR&gt;Senators in both parties said the issue is so volatile that Congress is highly unlikely to revisit it this fall or next year, when the presidential election will increasingly dominate American politics.&lt;BR&gt;A similar effort collapsed in the Congress last year, and the House has not bothered with an immigration bill this year, awaiting Senate action.&lt;BR&gt;The vote was a stinging setback for Bush, who advocated the bill as an imperfect but necessary fix of current immigration practices in which many illegal immigrants use forged documents or lapsed visas to live and work in the United States.&lt;BR&gt;It was a victory for Republican conservatives who criticized the bill’s provisions to establish pathways to lawful status for many of the estimated 12 million illegal immigrants. &lt;BR&gt;The bill would have toughened border security and instituted a new system for weeding out illegal immigrants from workplaces. It would have created a new guest worker program and allowed millions of illegal immigrants to obtain legal status if they briefly returned home.&lt;BR&gt;Bush, making a last-ditch bid to salvage the bill, called senators early Thursday morning to urge their support. Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff and Commerce Secretary Carlos Gutierrez approached senators as they entered and left the chamber shortly before the vote.&lt;BR&gt;“We have been in contact with members of Congress over the past couple of days and the president has made it clear that this is important to him,” White House spokesman Tony Snow said before the vote.&lt;BR&gt;But GOP conservatives led the opposition. They repeatedly said the government must secure the borders before allowing millions of illegal aliens a path to legal status.&lt;BR&gt;“Americans feel that they are losing their country ... to a government that has seemed to not have the competence or the ability to carry out the things that it says it will do,” Sen. Bob Corker, R-Tenn., said in the debate’s final hour.&lt;BR&gt;Sen. Elizabeth H. Dole, R-N.C., said many Americans “don’t have confidence” that borders, especially with Mexico, will be significantly tightened. “It’s not just promises but proof that the American people want,” Dole said.&lt;BR&gt;The bill’s backers said border security and accommodations must go hand in hand.&lt;BR&gt;“Year after year, we’ve had the broken borders,” said Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass. “Year after year, we’ve seen the exploitation of workers. Year after year, we’ve seen the people who live in fear within our own borders. This is the opportunity to change it. Now is the time.”&lt;BR&gt;Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., told colleagues that if the bill faltered, the political climate almost surely would not allow a serious reconsideration until 2009 or later. It would be highly unlikely, she said, “in the next few years to fix the existing system... We are so close.”&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&#160;&lt;/P&gt;</description> 
    <dc:creator>Michael</dc:creator> 
    <pubDate>Fri, 29 Jun 2007 05:00:00 GMT</pubDate> 
    <guid isPermaLink="false">f1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:11355</guid> 
    
</item>
<item>
    <comments>http://www.dailycourtreview.com/Default.aspx?tabid=66&amp;articleType=ArticleView&amp;articleId=10233#Comments</comments> 
    <slash:comments>0</slash:comments> 
    <wfw:commentRss>http://www.dailycourtreview.com/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=66&amp;ModuleID=1140&amp;ArticleID=10233</wfw:commentRss> 
    <trackback:ping>http://www.dailycourtreview.com/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=10233&amp;PortalID=0&amp;TabID=66</trackback:ping> 
    <title>Senate kills immigration reform</title> 
    <link>http://www.dailycourtreview.com/Default.aspx?tabid=66&amp;articleType=ArticleView&amp;articleId=10233</link> 
    <description>&lt;P&gt;&lt;FONT size=4&gt;The Senate drove a stake Thursday through President Bush’s plan to legalize millions of unlawful immigrants, likely postponing major action on immigration until after the 2008 elections.&lt;BR&gt;The bill’s supporters fell 14 votes short of the 60 needed to limit debate and clear the way for final passage of the legislation, which critics assailed as offering amnesty to illegal immigrants. The vote was 46 to 53 in favor of limiting the debate.&lt;BR&gt;Senators in both parties said the issue is so volatile that Congress is highly unlikely to revisit it this fall or next year, when the presidential election will increasingly dominate American politics.&lt;BR&gt;A similar effort collapsed in the Congress last year, and the House has not bothered with an immigration bill this year, awaiting Senate action.&lt;BR&gt;The vote was a stinging setback for Bush, who advocated the bill as an imperfect but necessary fix of current immigration practices in which many illegal immigrants use forged documents or lapsed visas to live and work in the United States.&lt;BR&gt;It was a victory for Republican conservatives who criticized the bill’s provisions to establish pathways to lawful status for many of the estimated 12 million illegal immigrants. &lt;BR&gt;The bill would have toughened border security and instituted a new system for weeding out illegal immigrants from workplaces. It would have created a new guest worker program and allowed millions of illegal immigrants to obtain legal status if they briefly returned home.&lt;BR&gt;Bush, making a last-ditch bid to salvage the bill, called senators early Thursday morning to urge their support. Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff and Commerce Secretary Carlos Gutierrez approached senators as they entered and left the chamber shortly before the vote.&lt;BR&gt;“We have been in contact with members of Congress over the past couple of days and the president has made it clear that this is important to him,” White House spokesman Tony Snow said before the vote.&lt;BR&gt;But GOP conservatives led the opposition. They repeatedly said the government must secure the borders before allowing millions of illegal aliens a path to legal status.&lt;BR&gt;“Americans feel that they are losing their country ... to a government that has seemed to not have the competence or the ability to carry out the things that it says it will do,” Sen. Bob Corker, R-Tenn., said in the debate’s final hour.&lt;BR&gt;Sen. Elizabeth H. Dole, R-N.C., said many Americans “don’t have confidence” that borders, especially with Mexico, will be significantly tightened. “It’s not just promises but proof that the American people want,” Dole said.&lt;BR&gt;The bill’s backers said border security and accommodations must go hand in hand.&lt;BR&gt;“Year after year, we’ve had the broken borders,” said Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass. “Year after year, we’ve seen the exploitation of workers. Year after year, we’ve seen the people who live in fear within our own borders. This is the opportunity to change it. Now is the time.”&lt;BR&gt;Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., told colleagues that if the bill faltered, the political climate almost surely would not allow a serious reconsideration until 2009 or later. It would be highly unlikely, she said, “in the next few years to fix the existing system... We are so close.”&lt;/FONT&gt;&lt;/P&gt;</description> 
    <dc:creator>Michael</dc:creator> 
    <pubDate>Fri, 29 Jun 2007 05:00:00 GMT</pubDate> 
    <guid isPermaLink="false">f1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:10233</guid> 
    
</item>
<item>
    <comments>http://www.dailycourtreview.com/Default.aspx?tabid=66&amp;articleType=ArticleView&amp;articleId=10056#Comments</comments> 
    <slash:comments>0</slash:comments> 
    <wfw:commentRss>http://www.dailycourtreview.com/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=66&amp;ModuleID=1140&amp;ArticleID=10056</wfw:commentRss> 
    <trackback:ping>http://www.dailycourtreview.com/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=10056&amp;PortalID=0&amp;TabID=66</trackback:ping> 
    <title>First quarter economic growth at 0.7 percent</title> 
    <link>http://www.dailycourtreview.com/Default.aspx?tabid=66&amp;articleType=ArticleView&amp;articleId=10056</link> 
    <description>The economy limped ahead at just a 0.7 percent pace in the first quarter, the slowest in more than four years, as some businesses clamped down on spending given uncertainties about the severity of the housing slump.&lt;BR&gt;The Commerce Department’s new reading on gross domestic product for the January-to-March period, released Thursday, was a slight upgrade from the 0.6 percent growth rate estimated a month ago. But it still fell short of economists’ forecasts for a 0.8 percent pace and will probably turn out to be the weakest point for the economy this year.&lt;BR&gt;“Companies were really watching their cash,” said Oscar Gonzalez, economist at John Hancock Financial Services.&lt;BR&gt;Gross domestic product measures the value of all goods and services produced in the United States. It is considered the best barometer of the country’s economic standing. Although businesses turned cautious, consumer spending remained sturdy, preventing the economy from stalling out entirely.&lt;BR&gt;Even though the economy slowed in the first quarter, an inflation gauge picked up speed.&lt;BR&gt;The inflation gauge tied to the GDP report and closely watched by the Federal Reserve showed that core prices - excluding food and energy - rose at a rate of 2.4 percent in the first quarter. That was higher that previously estimated and was faster than the 1.8 percent pace in the fourth quarter.&lt;BR&gt;The Fed has said that inflation poses the biggest potential danger to the economy. The new inflation reading was outside the central bank’s comfort zone, which ranges from 1 percent to 2 percent, and was an “unpleasant surprise for the Fed,” said Nariman Behravesh, chief economist at Global Insight.&lt;BR&gt;In other economic news, fewer people signed up for unemployment insurance last week, a sign the national job climate remains healthy. The Labor Department reported that new applications for jobless benefits dropped by 13,000 to 313,000 last week.&lt;BR&gt;The economy’s feeble 0.7 percent growth rate marked a significant loss of momentum from the 2.5 percent pace logged in the final quarter of last year. For nearly a year, the economy has been enduring a stretch of subpar economic growth mostly blamed on the housing slump.&lt;BR&gt;However, Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke has said other forces that figured prominently into the first-quarter’s anemic performance - including a bloated trade deficit, cutbacks by businesses in inventory investment and weak federal defense spending - “seem likely to be at least partially reversed in the near term.”&lt;BR&gt;There have been signs in more current economic reports that the economy is emerging from its nearly yearlong sluggish spell. Bernanke is among the economists predicting a rebound.&lt;BR&gt;Economic growth in the April-to-June quarter could clock in anywhere from a 2.3 percent to better than a 3 percent pace.&lt;BR&gt;Economists are anticipating the bounce back even though they expect the housing market to continue to be sour.&lt;BR&gt;The housing market nose-dived last year after a five-year boom.&lt;BR&gt;Investment in home building was slashed by 15.8 percent, on an annualized basis, in the first quarter. That was a deeper cut than estimated a month ago but wasn’t as severe as the 19.8 percent annualized drop seen in the final quarter of last year. Economists predict there will be more pain ahead.&lt;BR&gt;Facing uncertainties about the economy, businesses cut inventory investment as they tried to make sure unsold stocks didn’t get out of line with customer demand. That lopped off nearly a percentage point from first quarter GDP. The trade deficit also weighed on GDP in the first quarter, though slightly less so than previously estimated. That was the main reason the first quarter was upgraded to a 0.7 percent growth rate from the 0.6 percent pace reported a month ago.&lt;BR&gt;Cuts in federal spending also contributed to the weak first-quarter showing.&lt;BR&gt;As businesses tightened the belt, their profits gained ground.&lt;BR&gt;One measure showed after-tax profits rising 1.7 percent in the first quarter. That was better than estimated a month ago and was an improvement from the 0.8 percent rise logged in the fourth quarter.&lt;BR&gt;Consumers pretty much carried the economy in the first quarter; their spending kept the economy from stalling out altogether.&lt;BR&gt;Consumer spending grew at a brisk 4.2 percent pace for the second quarter in a row.&lt;BR&gt;One of the reasons consumers have remained resilient is because the job climate has stayed healthy despite the economic slowdown. The unemployment rate is at a relatively low 4.5 percent.&lt;BR&gt;Even so, the public is giving President Bush low marks for his economic stewardship. Only 37 percent approve of his handling of the economy, tying a record low set in November 2005, according to an AP-Ipsos poll.&lt;BR&gt;In another report, the United States continued to be the world’s largest debtor country with foreigners in 2006 owning $2.54 trillion more in U.S. assets, such as stocks, bonds and real estate, than Americans owned in foreign assets. In 2005, the investment gap totaled $2.24 trillion, the Commerce Department said.&lt;BR&gt;On the Net:&lt;BR&gt;GDP report: &lt;A href=&quot;https://www.esa.doc.gov/&quot;&gt;https://www.esa.doc.gov/&lt;/A&gt;</description> 
    <dc:creator>Michael</dc:creator> 
    <pubDate>Fri, 29 Jun 2007 05:00:00 GMT</pubDate> 
    <guid isPermaLink="false">f1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:10056</guid> 
    
</item>
<item>
    <comments>http://www.dailycourtreview.com/Default.aspx?tabid=66&amp;articleType=ArticleView&amp;articleId=10055#Comments</comments> 
    <slash:comments>0</slash:comments> 
    <wfw:commentRss>http://www.dailycourtreview.com/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=66&amp;ModuleID=1140&amp;ArticleID=10055</wfw:commentRss> 
    <trackback:ping>http://www.dailycourtreview.com/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=10055&amp;PortalID=0&amp;TabID=66</trackback:ping> 
    <title>High court blocks Texas execution</title> 
    <link>http://www.dailycourtreview.com/Default.aspx?tabid=66&amp;articleType=ArticleView&amp;articleId=10055</link> 
    <description>A divided Supreme Court on Thursday blocked the execution of a Texas killer whose lawyers argued that he should not be put to death because he is mentally ill.&lt;BR&gt;The court ruled 5-4 in the case of Scott Louis Panetti, who shot his in-laws to death 15 years ago in front of his wife and young daughter.&lt;BR&gt;The convicted murderer says that he suffers from a severe documented illness that is the source of gross delusions. “This argument, we hold, should have been considered,” said Justice Anthony Kennedy, who wrote the majority opinion.&lt;BR&gt;Panetti’s lawyers wanted the court to determine that people who cannot understand the connection between their crime and punishment because of mental illness may not be executed.&lt;BR&gt;The Eighth Amendment of the Constitution bars “the execution of a person who is so lacking in rational understanding that he cannot comprehend that he is being put to death because of the crime he was convicted of committing,” they said in court papers.&lt;BR&gt;In dissent, Justice Clarence Thomas said that Panetti had petitioned the federal courts twice in his case, but that the law allows only one petition.&lt;BR&gt;“The court bends over backwards to allow Panetti” to bring his current claim, despite no evidence that his condition has worsened, or even changed, since 1995, Thomas wrote.&lt;BR&gt;One of Panetti’s lawyers, Scott Hampton of Austin, Texas, said he was relieved.&lt;BR&gt;“Executing Scott Panetti would have been a mindless, meaningless, miserable spectacle,” said Hampton.&lt;BR&gt;Siding with Kennedy in the majority were Justices John Paul Stevens, David Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer.&lt;BR&gt;Joining Thomas in dissent were Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Antonin Scalia and Samuel Alito.&lt;BR&gt;Texas said the court should reject Panetti’s appeal on procedural grounds. But it also argued that the court should set a tougher standard for mental illness exceptions to capital punishment. Only if a Death Row inmate “lacks the capacity to recognize that his punishment both is the result of his being convicted of capital murder and will cause his death” should his execution be halted, the state said. Panetti is competent on that basis, it said.&lt;BR&gt;Panetti was condemned for the September 1992 slayings of his estranged wife’s parents, Joe Alvarado, 55, and Amanda Alvarado, 56, at their Fredericksburg home in the Texas Hill Country. His wife was living with them at the time. A week earlier she obtained a court order to keep him away.&lt;BR&gt;His wife and 3-year-old daughter, sprayed with blood when Panetti shot his in-laws, were held hostage until he surrendered after a lengthy standoff with police. He blamed it all on “Sarge,” one of his multiple personalities.&lt;BR&gt;A former ranch hand and native of Hayward, Wis., Panetti had a history of mental problems before his conviction, recording 14 hospital stays over 11 years.&lt;BR&gt;Four courts have said he was competent when he fired his trial lawyers. A jury and two courts rejected his defense of not guilty by reason of insanity. He personally argued that only an insane person could prove the insanity defense, dressing in cowboy clothing and submitting an initial witness list that included Jesus Christ and John F. Kennedy.&lt;BR&gt;Then-Justice Lewis Powell said 20 years ago that a person may not be put to death if he cannot perceive “the connection between his crime and his punishment.”&lt;BR&gt;The case is Panetti v. Quarterman, 06-6407.</description> 
    <dc:creator>Michael</dc:creator> 
    <pubDate>Fri, 29 Jun 2007 05:00:00 GMT</pubDate> 
    <guid isPermaLink="false">f1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:10055</guid> 
    
</item>
<item>
    <comments>http://www.dailycourtreview.com/Default.aspx?tabid=66&amp;articleType=ArticleView&amp;articleId=10054#Comments</comments> 
    <slash:comments>0</slash:comments> 
    <wfw:commentRss>http://www.dailycourtreview.com/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=66&amp;ModuleID=1140&amp;ArticleID=10054</wfw:commentRss> 
    <trackback:ping>http://www.dailycourtreview.com/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=10054&amp;PortalID=0&amp;TabID=66</trackback:ping> 
    <title>Senate kills reform legislation</title> 
    <link>http://www.dailycourtreview.com/Default.aspx?tabid=66&amp;articleType=ArticleView&amp;articleId=10054</link> 
    <description>&lt;P&gt;The Senate drove a stake Thursday through President Bush’s plan to legalize millions of unlawful immigrants, likely postponing major action on immigration until after the 2008 elections.&lt;BR&gt;The bill’s supporters fell 14 votes short of the 60 needed to limit debate and clear the way for final passage of the legislation, which critics assailed as offering amnesty to illegal immigrants. The vote was 46 to 53 in favor of limiting the debate.&lt;BR&gt;Senators in both parties said the issue is so volatile that Congress is highly unlikely to revisit it this fall or next year, when the presidential election will increasingly dominate American politics.&lt;BR&gt;A similar effort collapsed in the Congress last year, and the House has not bothered with an immigration bill this year, awaiting Senate action.&lt;BR&gt;The vote was a stinging setback for Bush, who advocated the bill as an imperfect but necessary fix of current immigration practices in which many illegal immigrants use forged documents or lapsed visas to live and work in the United States.&lt;BR&gt;It was a victory for Republican conservatives who criticized the bill’s provisions to establish pathways to lawful status for many of the estimated 12 million illegal immigrants. &lt;BR&gt;The bill would have toughened border security and instituted a new system for weeding out illegal immigrants from workplaces. It would have created a new guest worker program and allowed millions of illegal immigrants to obtain legal status if they briefly returned home.&lt;BR&gt;Bush, making a last-ditch bid to salvage the bill, called senators early Thursday morning to urge their support. Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff and Commerce Secretary Carlos Gutierrez approached senators as they entered and left the chamber shortly before the vote.&lt;BR&gt;“We have been in contact with members of Congress over the past couple of days and the president has made it clear that this is important to him,” White House spokesman Tony Snow said before the vote.&lt;BR&gt;But GOP conservatives led the opposition. They repeatedly said the government must secure the borders before allowing millions of illegal aliens a path to legal status.&lt;BR&gt;“Americans feel that they are losing their country ... to a government that has seemed to not have the competence or the ability to carry out the things that it says it will do,” Sen. Bob Corker, R-Tenn., said in the debate’s final hour.&lt;BR&gt;Sen. Elizabeth H. Dole, R-N.C., said many Americans “don’t have confidence” that borders, especially with Mexico, will be significantly tightened. “It’s not just promises but proof that the American people want,” Dole said.&lt;BR&gt;The bill’s backers said border security and accommodations must go hand in hand.&lt;BR&gt;“Year after year, we’ve had the broken borders,” said Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass. “Year after year, we’ve seen the exploitation of workers. Year after year, we’ve seen the people who live in fear within our own borders. This is the opportunity to change it. Now is the time.”&lt;BR&gt;Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., told colleagues that if the bill faltered, the political climate almost surely would not allow a serious reconsideration until 2009 or later. It would be highly unlikely, she said, “in the next few years to fix the existing system... We are so close.”&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&#160;&lt;/P&gt;</description> 
    <dc:creator>Michael</dc:creator> 
    <pubDate>Fri, 29 Jun 2007 05:00:00 GMT</pubDate> 
    <guid isPermaLink="false">f1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:10054</guid> 
    
</item>
<item>
    <comments>http://www.dailycourtreview.com/Default.aspx?tabid=66&amp;articleType=ArticleView&amp;articleId=11669#Comments</comments> 
    <slash:comments>0</slash:comments> 
    <wfw:commentRss>http://www.dailycourtreview.com/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=66&amp;ModuleID=1140&amp;ArticleID=11669</wfw:commentRss> 
    <trackback:ping>http://www.dailycourtreview.com/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=11669&amp;PortalID=0&amp;TabID=66</trackback:ping> 
    <title>High court says no</title> 
    <link>http://www.dailycourtreview.com/Default.aspx?tabid=66&amp;articleType=ArticleView&amp;articleId=11669</link> 
    <description>&lt;P&gt;&lt;FONT size=4&gt;The Associated Press&lt;/FONT&gt;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&lt;FONT size=4&gt;The state’s highest criminal court on Wednesday refused to reinstate a dropped conspiracy charge against former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay.&lt;BR&gt;Two charges - money laundering and conspiring to launder money - remain against the former congressman. He resigned last year amid allegations that he violated campaign finance laws to funnel $190,000 in corporate contributions to Republicans in the state’s 2002 legislative elections.&lt;BR&gt;The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals ruled 5-4 against reinstating a count of conspiracy to violate the state’s election code.&lt;BR&gt;A state district judge threw out that charge in December 2005 after defense lawyers argued that the law DeLay was accused of violating didn’t take effect until 2003. A regional appeals court upheld the judge’s decision.&lt;BR&gt;DeLay said the ruling brought him “thankfully closer” to a resolution of the charges and repeated his longstanding contention that the prosecution is politically motivated.&lt;BR&gt;“What (Travis County prosecutor) Ronnie Earle accomplished is no rookie error. It’s a political attack using our legal system as the primary weapon,” DeLay said in a statement issued from Virginia, where he now lives.&lt;BR&gt;“The damage he has done to my family and my career cannot be rectified, but the courts have recognized a significant portion of the injustice and ruled accordingly,” he said.&lt;BR&gt;Rudy Magallanes, a spokesman for Earle, said the prosecutor’s office was reviewing the appeals court opinion and he had no immediate comment.&lt;BR&gt;DeLay’s attorney, Dick DeGuerin, said he was pleased with Wednesday’s ruling but sorry it took so long.&lt;BR&gt;“Ronnie Earle indicted Tom DeLay for a crime that didn’t exist, wasn’t on the books,” DeGuerin said.&lt;BR&gt;Lawyers are arguing about the remaining charges before an appeals court, and no trial date has been set. DeLay, who represented Houston’s southwest suburbs for more than 20 years, is charged along with co-defendants John Colyandro and Jim Ellis.&lt;BR&gt;Texas’ 2002 legislative elections gave the GOP a majority in the state House of Representatives, giving the party its first speaker, Tom Craddick, since Reconstruction.&lt;BR&gt;In 2003, Craddick and other Republicans pushed a congressional redistricting plan engineered by DeLay through the Legislature, and Gov. Rick Perry signed it into law.&lt;/FONT&gt;&lt;/P&gt;</description> 
    <dc:creator>admin</dc:creator> 
    <pubDate>Thu, 28 Jun 2007 05:00:00 GMT</pubDate> 
    <guid isPermaLink="false">f1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:11669</guid> 
    
</item>
<item>
    <comments>http://www.dailycourtreview.com/Default.aspx?tabid=66&amp;articleType=ArticleView&amp;articleId=11668#Comments</comments> 
    <slash:comments>0</slash:comments> 
    <wfw:commentRss>http://www.dailycourtreview.com/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=66&amp;ModuleID=1140&amp;ArticleID=11668</wfw:commentRss> 
    <trackback:ping>http://www.dailycourtreview.com/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=11668&amp;PortalID=0&amp;TabID=66</trackback:ping> 
    <title>Energy prices increase while other markets finish mixed</title> 
    <link>http://www.dailycourtreview.com/Default.aspx?tabid=66&amp;articleType=ArticleView&amp;articleId=11668</link> 
    <description>&lt;P&gt;&lt;FONT size=4&gt;The Associated Press&lt;/FONT&gt;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&lt;FONT size=4&gt;Energy prices rallied Wednesday after the government reported a surprising drop in U.S. stockpiles of gasoline and distillates such as heating oil and diesel fuel.&lt;BR&gt;Other commodities finished mixed as gold and silver prices slipped, industrial metals made modest gains and agriculture product prices reacted to changing weather patterns.&lt;BR&gt;The Energy Information Administration on Wednesday reported the nation’s gasoline inventories fell by 700,000 barrels, bucking analysts’ consensus forecast for a build of more than 1 million barrels. At 202.6 million barrels total, gasoline stocks stand well below the average level for this time of year.&lt;BR&gt;Distillate stocks, which include heating oil and diesel fuel, also declined despite market expectations for an increase. The summer is typically a key time for the market to grow heating oil inventories, and the surprise draw bolstered prices.&lt;BR&gt;Although the report showed a larger-than-expected rise in crude oil inventories, improving rates of refinery utilization indicated that demand for crude will soon start to climb, said Man Financial analyst Andrew Lebow. U.S. refinery use rose to 89.4 percent last week from 87.6 percent a week earlier.&lt;BR&gt;“As refinery runs continue to increase - and they will - we should be looking at some fairly significant crude stock draws in coming weeks,” Lebow said. “I think the market in crude is looking beyond this week’s report and viewing that as supportive.”&lt;BR&gt;Light, sweet crude for August delivery picked up $1.20 to settle at $68.97 a barrel on the New York Mercantile Exchange. Gasoline futures rose less than 1 cent to close at $2.2546 a gallon, while heating oil added 3.13 cents to $2.0246 a gallon.&lt;BR&gt;Elsewhere on the Nymex, gold prices wavered between modest gains and losses Wednesday but ultimately failed to recover from Tuesday’s steep fall. A strengthening U.S. dollar pressured prices, canceling support from a dip in the yield on the Treasury’s 10-year note.&lt;BR&gt;Gold for August delivery dropped 50 cents to settle at $644.80 an ounce on the Nymex on Wednesday, a day after prices touched their lowest level since mid-January. Silver also fell, with the July contract shedding 7 cents to end at $12.21 an ounce.&lt;BR&gt;The other industrial metals edged less than 1 percent higher on the London Metal Exchange, except for zinc, which closed the session down 1.5 percent. Nymex copper rose 4.35 cents to settle at $3.357 a pound.&lt;BR&gt;In Chicago, corn prices recoiled amid reports that rains have finally reached the parched eastern Corn Belt. The market also looked ahead to an upcoming report from the U.S. Department of Agriculture, due out Friday, which will show how many acres of land farmers dedicated to corn this year.&lt;BR&gt;In March, the USDA had reported that farmers intended to plant 90.5 million acres of corn - the most since 1944. Market analysts expect Friday’s report of the acreage actually planted to be even higher, at about 91 million acres, said DTN analyst Elaine Kub.&lt;BR&gt;Those expectations also took their toll on prices. Corn for July delivery dropped 12.6 cents a bushel to settle at $3.436 on the Chicago Board of Trade.&lt;BR&gt;In the wheat market, too much rain in Texas and Oklahoma continued to inflame concerns about wheat supplies and briefly sent prices to a new 10-year high above $6.25 a bushel. The July contract fell back before the close, however, ending down 2.4 cents to $6.06 a bushel.&lt;/FONT&gt;&lt;/P&gt;</description> 
    <dc:creator>admin</dc:creator> 
    <pubDate>Thu, 28 Jun 2007 05:00:00 GMT</pubDate> 
    <guid isPermaLink="false">f1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:11668</guid> 
    
</item>
<item>
    <comments>http://www.dailycourtreview.com/Default.aspx?tabid=66&amp;articleType=ArticleView&amp;articleId=11667#Comments</comments> 
    <slash:comments>0</slash:comments> 
    <wfw:commentRss>http://www.dailycourtreview.com/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=66&amp;ModuleID=1140&amp;ArticleID=11667</wfw:commentRss> 
    <trackback:ping>http://www.dailycourtreview.com/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=11667&amp;PortalID=0&amp;TabID=66</trackback:ping> 
    <title>Big-ticket goods plunge</title> 
    <link>http://www.dailycourtreview.com/Default.aspx?tabid=66&amp;articleType=ArticleView&amp;articleId=11667</link> 
    <description>&lt;P&gt;&lt;FONT size=4&gt;The Associated Press&lt;/FONT&gt;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&lt;FONT size=4&gt;Orders to U.S. factories for big-ticket manufactured goods plunged in May by the largest amount in four months as demand for aircraft, heavy machinery and metals all declined.&lt;BR&gt;The Commerce Department reported Wednesday that new durable goods orders dropped by 2.8 percent last month, a far bigger drop than the 1 percent decline economists had been forecasting.&lt;BR&gt;The weakness was led by a huge 22.7 percent plunge in commercial aircraft orders, which can be extremely volatile from month to month. But orders were also down for a wide array of other goods, from primary metals such as steel to machinery and electronic appliances.&lt;BR&gt;Orders for nondefense capital goods excluding aircraft, considered a good proxy for business investment, fell by 3 percent, the biggest drop since a 4.4 percent plunge in January.&lt;BR&gt;Economists discounted some of the weakness, noting that the government revised previous months upward to show more strength in orders.&lt;BR&gt;“Manufacturing is doing OK, but it is not going to be a major source of growth in the near future,” said Mark Zandi, chief economist at Moody’s Economy.com. He said factories were being held back by continued troubles in the domestic auto industry and with the problems in housing, which has depressed demand for building products and construction machinery.&lt;BR&gt;“Strong global demand should generate enough strength in export markets to allow for modest economic and manufacturing growth,” predicted Cliff Waldman, an economist for the Manufacturers Alliance/MAPI, an industry trade group.&lt;BR&gt;The economy slowed to a barely discernible annual growth rate of just 0.6 percent in the first three months of this year. But economists believe growth has rebounded in the April-to-June quarter to a more robust 3.5 percent rate despite the severe slump in housing that has lasted longer than expected.&lt;BR&gt;The Federal Reserve was expected to leave interest rates unchanged when it concludes a two-day meeting on Thursday, repeating its past views that inflation remains the dominant threat to the economy.&lt;BR&gt;The 22.7 percent drop in orders for commercial aircraft reflected the fact that Boeing Co. took orders for 92 planes in May, down from a bumper crop of 136 orders in April.&lt;BR&gt;Orders for motor vehicles actually rose by 2.3 percent last month, following a 2.8 percent drop in April.&lt;BR&gt;Orders in the transportation category fell by 6.8 percent, the biggest drop since January.&lt;BR&gt;Even without the weakness in transportation, orders would have been down last month, dropping by 1 percent when that category is excluded.&lt;BR&gt;One of the few areas of strength was in computers and electronic products, which were up 1.8 percent.&lt;/FONT&gt;&lt;/P&gt;</description> 
    <dc:creator>admin</dc:creator> 
    <pubDate>Thu, 28 Jun 2007 05:00:00 GMT</pubDate> 
    <guid isPermaLink="false">f1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:11667</guid> 
    
</item>
<item>
    <comments>http://www.dailycourtreview.com/Default.aspx?tabid=66&amp;articleType=ArticleView&amp;articleId=11467#Comments</comments> 
    <slash:comments>0</slash:comments> 
    <wfw:commentRss>http://www.dailycourtreview.com/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=66&amp;ModuleID=1140&amp;ArticleID=11467</wfw:commentRss> 
    <trackback:ping>http://www.dailycourtreview.com/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=11467&amp;PortalID=0&amp;TabID=66</trackback:ping> 
    <title></title> 
    <link>http://www.dailycourtreview.com/Default.aspx?tabid=66&amp;articleType=ArticleView&amp;articleId=11467</link> 
    <description></description> 
    <dc:creator>Michael</dc:creator> 
    <pubDate>Thu, 28 Jun 2007 05:00:00 GMT</pubDate> 
    <guid isPermaLink="false">f1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:11467</guid> 
    
</item>
<item>
    <comments>http://www.dailycourtreview.com/Default.aspx?tabid=66&amp;articleType=ArticleView&amp;articleId=10368#Comments</comments> 
    <slash:comments>0</slash:comments> 
    <wfw:commentRss>http://www.dailycourtreview.com/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=66&amp;ModuleID=1140&amp;ArticleID=10368</wfw:commentRss> 
    <trackback:ping>http://www.dailycourtreview.com/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=10368&amp;PortalID=0&amp;TabID=66</trackback:ping> 
    <title>High court says no</title> 
    <link>http://www.dailycourtreview.com/Default.aspx?tabid=66&amp;articleType=ArticleView&amp;articleId=10368</link> 
    <description>&lt;P&gt;&lt;FONT size=4&gt;The Associated Press&lt;/FONT&gt;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&lt;FONT size=4&gt;The state’s highest criminal court on Wednesday refused to reinstate a dropped conspiracy charge against former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay.&lt;BR&gt;Two charges - money laundering and conspiring to launder money - remain against the former congressman. He resigned last year amid allegations that he violated campaign finance laws to funnel $190,000 in corporate contributions to Republicans in the state’s 2002 legislative elections.&lt;BR&gt;The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals ruled 5-4 against reinstating a count of conspiracy to violate the state’s election code.&lt;BR&gt;A state district judge threw out that charge in December 2005 after defense lawyers argued that the law DeLay was accused of violating didn’t take effect until 2003. A regional appeals court upheld the judge’s decision.&lt;BR&gt;DeLay said the ruling brought him “thankfully closer” to a resolution of the charges and repeated his longstanding contention that the prosecution is politically motivated.&lt;BR&gt;“What (Travis County prosecutor) Ronnie Earle accomplished is no rookie error. It’s a political attack using our legal system as the primary weapon,” DeLay said in a statement issued from Virginia, where he now lives.&lt;BR&gt;“The damage he has done to my family and my career cannot be rectified, but the courts have recognized a significant portion of the injustice and ruled accordingly,” he said.&lt;BR&gt;Rudy Magallanes, a spokesman for Earle, said the prosecutor’s office was reviewing the appeals court opinion and he had no immediate comment.&lt;BR&gt;DeLay’s attorney, Dick DeGuerin, said he was pleased with Wednesday’s ruling but sorry it took so long.&lt;BR&gt;“Ronnie Earle indicted Tom DeLay for a crime that didn’t exist, wasn’t on the books,” DeGuerin said.&lt;BR&gt;Lawyers are arguing about the remaining charges before an appeals court, and no trial date has been set. DeLay, who represented Houston’s southwest suburbs for more than 20 years, is charged along with co-defendants John Colyandro and Jim Ellis.&lt;BR&gt;Texas’ 2002 legislative elections gave the GOP a majority in the state House of Representatives, giving the party its first speaker, Tom Craddick, since Reconstruction.&lt;BR&gt;In 2003, Craddick and other Republicans pushed a congressional redistricting plan engineered by DeLay through the Legislature, and Gov. Rick Perry signed it into law.&lt;/FONT&gt;&lt;/P&gt;</description> 
    <dc:creator>admin</dc:creator> 
    <pubDate>Thu, 28 Jun 2007 05:00:00 GMT</pubDate> 
    <guid isPermaLink="false">f1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:10368</guid> 
    
</item>
<item>
    <comments>http://www.dailycourtreview.com/Default.aspx?tabid=66&amp;articleType=ArticleView&amp;articleId=10367#Comments</comments> 
    <slash:comments>0</slash:comments> 
    <wfw:commentRss>http://www.dailycourtreview.com/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=66&amp;ModuleID=1140&amp;ArticleID=10367</wfw:commentRss> 
    <trackback:ping>http://www.dailycourtreview.com/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=10367&amp;PortalID=0&amp;TabID=66</trackback:ping> 
    <title>Energy prices increase while other markets finish mixed</title> 
    <link>http://www.dailycourtreview.com/Default.aspx?tabid=66&amp;articleType=ArticleView&amp;articleId=10367</link> 
    <description>&lt;P&gt;&lt;FONT size=4&gt;The Associated Press&lt;/FONT&gt;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&lt;FONT size=4&gt;Energy prices rallied Wednesday after the government reported a surprising drop in U.S. stockpiles of gasoline and distillates such as heating oil and diesel fuel.&lt;BR&gt;Other commodities finished mixed as gold and silver prices slipped, industrial metals made modest gains and agriculture product prices reacted to changing weather patterns.&lt;BR&gt;The Energy Information Administration on Wednesday reported the nation’s gasoline inventories fell by 700,000 barrels, bucking analysts’ consensus forecast for a build of more than 1 million barrels. At 202.6 million barrels total, gasoline stocks stand well below the average level for this time of year.&lt;BR&gt;Distillate stocks, which include heating oil and diesel fuel, also declined despite market expectations for an increase. The summer is typically a key time for the market to grow heating oil inventories, and the surprise draw bolstered prices.&lt;BR&gt;Although the report showed a larger-than-expected rise in crude oil inventories, improving rates of refinery utilization indicated that demand for crude will soon start to climb, said Man Financial analyst Andrew Lebow. U.S. refinery use rose to 89.4 percent last week from 87.6 percent a week earlier.&lt;BR&gt;“As refinery runs continue to increase - and they will - we should be looking at some fairly significant crude stock draws in coming weeks,” Lebow said. “I think the market in crude is looking beyond this week’s report and viewing that as supportive.”&lt;BR&gt;Light, sweet crude for August delivery picked up $1.20 to settle at $68.97 a barrel on the New York Mercantile Exchange. Gasoline futures rose less than 1 cent to close at $2.2546 a gallon, while heating oil added 3.13 cents to $2.0246 a gallon.&lt;BR&gt;Elsewhere on the Nymex, gold prices wavered between modest gains and losses Wednesday but ultimately failed to recover from Tuesday’s steep fall. A strengthening U.S. dollar pressured prices, canceling support from a dip in the yield on the Treasury’s 10-year note.&lt;BR&gt;Gold for August delivery dropped 50 cents to settle at $644.80 an ounce on the Nymex on Wednesday, a day after prices touched their lowest level since mid-January. Silver also fell, with the July contract shedding 7 cents to end at $12.21 an ounce.&lt;BR&gt;The other industrial metals edged less than 1 percent higher on the London Metal Exchange, except for zinc, which closed the session down 1.5 percent. Nymex copper rose 4.35 cents to settle at $3.357 a pound.&lt;BR&gt;In Chicago, corn prices recoiled amid reports that rains have finally reached the parched eastern Corn Belt. The market also looked ahead to an upcoming report from the U.S. Department of Agriculture, due out Friday, which will show how many acres of land farmers dedicated to corn this year.&lt;BR&gt;In March, the USDA had reported that farmers intended to plant 90.5 million acres of corn - the most since 1944. Market analysts expect Friday’s report of the acreage actually planted to be even higher, at about 91 million acres, said DTN analyst Elaine Kub.&lt;BR&gt;Those expectations also took their toll on prices. Corn for July delivery dropped 12.6 cents a bushel to settle at $3.436 on the Chicago Board of Trade.&lt;BR&gt;In the wheat market, too much rain in Texas and Oklahoma continued to inflame concerns about wheat supplies and briefly sent prices to a new 10-year high above $6.25 a bushel. The July contract fell back before the close, however, ending down 2.4 cents to $6.06 a bushel.&lt;/FONT&gt;&lt;/P&gt;</description> 
    <dc:creator>admin</dc:creator> 
    <pubDate>Thu, 28 Jun 2007 05:00:00 GMT</pubDate> 
    <guid isPermaLink="false">f1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:10367</guid> 
    
</item>
<item>
    <comments>http://www.dailycourtreview.com/Default.aspx?tabid=66&amp;articleType=ArticleView&amp;articleId=10366#Comments</comments> 
    <slash:comments>0</slash:comments> 
    <wfw:commentRss>http://www.dailycourtreview.com/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=66&amp;ModuleID=1140&amp;ArticleID=10366</wfw:commentRss> 
    <trackback:ping>http://www.dailycourtreview.com/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=10366&amp;PortalID=0&amp;TabID=66</trackback:ping> 
    <title>Big-ticket goods plunge</title> 
    <link>http://www.dailycourtreview.com/Default.aspx?tabid=66&amp;articleType=ArticleView&amp;articleId=10366</link> 
    <description>&lt;P&gt;&lt;FONT size=4&gt;The Associated Press&lt;/FONT&gt;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&lt;FONT size=4&gt;Orders to U.S. factories for big-ticket manufactured goods plunged in May by the largest amount in four months as demand for aircraft, heavy machinery and metals all declined.&lt;BR&gt;The Commerce Department reported Wednesday that new durable goods orders dropped by 2.8 percent last month, a far bigger drop than the 1 percent decline economists had been forecasting.&lt;BR&gt;The weakness was led by a huge 22.7 percent plunge in commercial aircraft orders, which can be extremely volatile from month to month. But orders were also down for a wide array of other goods, from primary metals such as steel to machinery and electronic appliances.&lt;BR&gt;Orders for nondefense capital goods excluding aircraft, considered a good proxy for business investment, fell by 3 percent, the biggest drop since a 4.4 percent plunge in January.&lt;BR&gt;Economists discounted some of the weakness, noting that the government revised previous months upward to show more strength in orders.&lt;BR&gt;“Manufacturing is doing OK, but it is not going to be a major source of growth in the near future,” said Mark Zandi, chief economist at Moody’s Economy.com. He said factories were being held back by continued troubles in the domestic auto industry and with the problems in housing, which has depressed demand for building products and construction machinery.&lt;BR&gt;“Strong global demand should generate enough strength in export markets to allow for modest economic and manufacturing growth,” predicted Cliff Waldman, an economist for the Manufacturers Alliance/MAPI, an industry trade group.&lt;BR&gt;The economy slowed to a barely discernible annual growth rate of just 0.6 percent in the first three months of this year. But economists believe growth has rebounded in the April-to-June quarter to a more robust 3.5 percent rate despite the severe slump in housing that has lasted longer than expected.&lt;BR&gt;The Federal Reserve was expected to leave interest rates unchanged when it concludes a two-day meeting on Thursday, repeating its past views that inflation remains the dominant threat to the economy.&lt;BR&gt;The 22.7 percent drop in orders for commercial aircraft reflected the fact that Boeing Co. took orders for 92 planes in May, down from a bumper crop of 136 orders in April.&lt;BR&gt;Orders for motor vehicles actually rose by 2.3 percent last month, following a 2.8 percent drop in April.&lt;BR&gt;Orders in the transportation category fell by 6.8 percent, the biggest drop since January.&lt;BR&gt;Even without the weakness in transportation, orders would have been down last month, dropping by 1 percent when that category is excluded.&lt;BR&gt;One of the few areas of strength was in computers and electronic products, which were up 1.8 percent.&lt;/FONT&gt;&lt;/P&gt;</description> 
    <dc:creator>admin</dc:creator> 
    <pubDate>Thu, 28 Jun 2007 05:00:00 GMT</pubDate> 
    <guid isPermaLink="false">f1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:10366</guid> 
    
</item>
<item>
    <comments>http://www.dailycourtreview.com/Default.aspx?tabid=66&amp;articleType=ArticleView&amp;articleId=10166#Comments</comments> 
    <slash:comments>0</slash:comments> 
    <wfw:commentRss>http://www.dailycourtreview.com/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=66&amp;ModuleID=1140&amp;ArticleID=10166</wfw:commentRss> 
    <trackback:ping>http://www.dailycourtreview.com/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=10166&amp;PortalID=0&amp;TabID=66</trackback:ping> 
    <title></title> 
    <link>http://www.dailycourtreview.com/Default.aspx?tabid=66&amp;articleType=ArticleView&amp;articleId=10166</link> 
    <description></description> 
    <dc:creator>Michael</dc:creator> 
    <pubDate>Thu, 28 Jun 2007 05:00:00 GMT</pubDate> 
    <guid isPermaLink="false">f1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:10166</guid> 
    
</item>
<item>
    <comments>http://www.dailycourtreview.com/Default.aspx?tabid=66&amp;articleType=ArticleView&amp;articleId=11533#Comments</comments> 
    <slash:comments>0</slash:comments> 
    <wfw:commentRss>http://www.dailycourtreview.com/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=66&amp;ModuleID=1140&amp;ArticleID=11533</wfw:commentRss> 
    <trackback:ping>http://www.dailycourtreview.com/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=11533&amp;PortalID=0&amp;TabID=66</trackback:ping> 
    <title>Homes sales decline</title> 
    <link>http://www.dailycourtreview.com/Default.aspx?tabid=66&amp;articleType=ArticleView&amp;articleId=11533</link> 
    <description>&lt;P&gt;&lt;FONT size=4&gt;The Associated Press&lt;/FONT&gt;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&lt;FONT size=4&gt;Sales of new homes fell in May for the fourth time in the past five months, providing further evidence of a continued slump in housing.&lt;BR&gt;The Commerce Department reported Tuesday that sales of new single-family homes dropped by 1.6 percent last month to a seasonally adjusted annual rate of 915,000 units. That followed a 12.5 percent surge in April sales, which was the biggest one-month jump in more than a decade.&lt;BR&gt;But the April increase, which analysts believe was heavily influenced by special factors such as the weather, marked the only strength this year. In every other month, sales have fallen as builders struggle to deal with the most serious downturn in housing in 16 years.&lt;BR&gt;The median price of a new home sold in April was $236,100, down 0.9 percent from the price a year ago. The median is the midpoint where half the homes sold for more and half for less.&lt;BR&gt;The slump in sales affected most parts of the country. Sales were down 7.3 percent in the South, where half of new homes are sold, and fell an even larger 11 percent in the Northeast. Sales were also off in the West by 1.9 percent. The only region of the country that saw an increase was the Midwest, where sales jumped by 30.8 percent.&lt;BR&gt;Home prices are expected to fall further in coming months as builders slash prices more to trim a glut of unsold homes in the face of deepening troubles in housing. The National Association of Home Builders reported last week that builder confidence has fallen to the lowest level in 16 years.&lt;BR&gt;The troubles in housing follow a prolonged boom in which sales of both new and existing homes set records for five consecutive years. That ended in 2006 as investors, who had been lured into the market by soaring home prices, began to retreat in the face of rising mortgage rates and slumping prices, especially in the once red-hot markets.&lt;BR&gt;Adding to the problems are spreading problems in mortgage lending, reflected by rising foreclosure rates as borrowers are unable to meet payments on adjustable rate loans which are now resetting at higher rates.&lt;BR&gt;The inventory of unsold homes did drop by 1.1 percent May to 536,000 units but because the sales pace slowed, the length of time it would take to deplete inventories actually rose to 7.1 months, up from 7.0 months in April.&lt;BR&gt;The decline in new home sales followed a report Monday that showed sales of existing homes, which make up more than four-fifths of home sales, fell for a third straight month in May to a seasonally adjusted annual rate of 5.99 million units. The median price of an existing home dropped to $223,700, down by 2.1 percent from a year ago. It was the 10th consecutive fall in prices compared to a year ago, the longest stretch on record.&lt;BR&gt;The overall economy slowed to an anemic growth rate of 0.6 percent in the first three months of this year, the slowest in more than four years, but Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke has said that he believes the economy will rebound in coming months despite the fact that the housing slowdown is lasting longer than the Fed had expected.&lt;BR&gt;Many analysts believe that growth in the current April-June quarter will come in at a more respectable 3.5 percent rate even though they say that the drag from housing should last for the rest of this year.&lt;/FONT&gt;&lt;/P&gt;</description> 
    <dc:creator>admin</dc:creator> 
    <pubDate>Wed, 27 Jun 2007 05:00:00 GMT</pubDate> 
    <guid isPermaLink="false">f1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:11533</guid> 
    
</item>
<item>
    <comments>http://www.dailycourtreview.com/Default.aspx?tabid=66&amp;articleType=ArticleView&amp;articleId=11468#Comments</comments> 
    <slash:comments>0</slash:comments> 
    <wfw:commentRss>http://www.dailycourtreview.com/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=66&amp;ModuleID=1140&amp;ArticleID=11468</wfw:commentRss> 
    <trackback:ping>http://www.dailycourtreview.com/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=11468&amp;PortalID=0&amp;TabID=66</trackback:ping> 
    <title>High court blocks Texas execution</title> 
    <link>http://www.dailycourtreview.com/Default.aspx?tabid=66&amp;articleType=ArticleView&amp;articleId=11468</link> 
    <description>&lt;FONT size=4&gt;A divided Supreme Court on Thursday blocked the execution of a Texas killer whose lawyers argued that he should not be put to death because he is mentally ill.&lt;BR&gt;The court ruled 5-4 in the case of Scott Louis Panetti, who shot his in-laws to death 15 years ago in front of his wife and young daughter.&lt;BR&gt;The convicted murderer says that he suffers from a severe documented illness that is the source of gross delusions. “This argument, we hold, should have been considered,” said Justice Anthony Kennedy, who wrote the majority opinion.&lt;BR&gt;Panetti’s lawyers wanted the court to determine that people who cannot understand the connection between their crime and punishment because of mental illness may not be executed.&lt;BR&gt;The Eighth Amendment of the Constitution bars “the execution of a person who is so lacking in rational understanding that he cannot comprehend that he is being put to death because of the crime he was convicted of committing,” they said in court papers.&lt;BR&gt;In dissent, Justice Clarence Thomas said that Panetti had petitioned the federal courts twice in his case, but that the law allows only one petition.&lt;BR&gt;“The court bends over backwards to allow Panetti” to bring his current claim, despite no evidence that his condition has worsened, or even changed, since 1995, Thomas wrote.&lt;BR&gt;One of Panetti’s lawyers, Scott Hampton of Austin, Texas, said he was relieved.&lt;BR&gt;“Executing Scott Panetti would have been a mindless, meaningless, miserable spectacle,” said Hampton.&lt;BR&gt;Siding with Kennedy in the majority were Justices John Paul Stevens, David Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer.&lt;BR&gt;Joining Thomas in dissent were Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Antonin Scalia and Samuel Alito.&lt;BR&gt;Texas said the court should reject Panetti’s appeal on procedural grounds. But it also argued that the court should set a tougher standard for mental illness exceptions to capital punishment. Only if a Death Row inmate “lacks the capacity to recognize that his punishment both is the result of his being convicted of capital murder and will cause his death” should his execution be halted, the state said. Panetti is competent on that basis, it said.&lt;BR&gt;Panetti was condemned for the September 1992 slayings of his estranged wife’s parents, Joe Alvarado, 55, and Amanda Alvarado, 56, at their Fredericksburg home in the Texas Hill Country. His wife was living with them at the time. A week earlier she obtained a court order to keep him away.&lt;BR&gt;His wife and 3-year-old daughter, sprayed with blood when Panetti shot his in-laws, were held hostage until he surrendered after a lengthy standoff with police. He blamed it all on “Sarge,” one of his multiple personalities.&lt;BR&gt;A former ranch hand and native of Hayward, Wis., Panetti had a history of mental problems before his conviction, recording 14 hospital stays over 11 years.&lt;BR&gt;Four courts have said he was competent when he fired his trial lawyers. A jury and two courts rejected his defense of not guilty by reason of insanity. He personally argued that only an insane person could prove the insanity defense, dressing in cowboy clothing and submitting an initial witness list that included Jesus Christ and John F. Kennedy.&lt;BR&gt;Then-Justice Lewis Powell said 20 years ago that a person may not be put to death if he cannot perceive “the connection between his crime and his punishment.”&lt;BR&gt;The case is Panetti v. Quarterman, 06-6407.&lt;/FONT&gt;</description> 
    <dc:creator>Michael</dc:creator> 
    <pubDate>Wed, 27 Jun 2007 05:00:00 GMT</pubDate> 
    <guid isPermaLink="false">f1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:11468</guid> 
    
</item>
<item>
    <comments>http://www.dailycourtreview.com/Default.aspx?tabid=66&amp;articleType=ArticleView&amp;articleId=11354#Comments</comments> 
    <slash:comments>0</slash:comments> 
    <wfw:commentRss>http://www.dailycourtreview.com/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=66&amp;ModuleID=1140&amp;ArticleID=11354</wfw:commentRss> 
    <trackback:ping>http://www.dailycourtreview.com/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=11354&amp;PortalID=0&amp;TabID=66</trackback:ping> 
    <title>Immigration bill passes test to return to Senate floor</title> 
    <link>http://www.dailycourtreview.com/Default.aspx?tabid=66&amp;articleType=ArticleView&amp;articleId=11354</link> 
    <description>&lt;P&gt;&lt;FONT size=4&gt;&#160;The Associated Press&lt;/FONT&gt;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&lt;FONT size=4&gt;The Senate voted Tuesday to jump-start a stalled immigration measure to legalize millions of unlawful immigrants.&lt;BR&gt;President Bush said the bill offered a “historic opportunity for Congress to act,” and appeared optimistic about its passage by week’s end.&lt;BR&gt;The pivotal test-vote was 64-35 to revive the divisive legislation. It still faces formidable obstacles in the Senate, including bitter opposition by GOP conservatives and attempts by some waverers in both parties to revise its key elements.&lt;BR&gt;Supporters needed 60 votes to scale procedural hurdles and return to the bill. A similar test-vote earlier this month found just 45 supporters, only seven of them Republicans.&lt;BR&gt;Tuesday’s outcome was far from conclusive, however. The measure still must overcome another make-or-break vote as early as Thursday that will also require the backing of 60 senators, and there is no guarantee that it will ultimately attract even the simple majority it needs to pass.&lt;BR&gt;The Senate was preparing to begin voting as early as Tuesday afternoon on some two dozen amendments that have the potential to either sap its support or draw new backers.&lt;BR&gt;Republicans and Democrats alike are deeply conflicted over the measure, which also creates a temporary worker program, strengthens border security and institutes a new system for weeding out illegal immigrants from workplaces.&lt;BR&gt;Bush has mounted an unusually personal effort to defuse Republican opposition to the bill, appearing at a Senate party lunch earlier this month and dispatching two Cabinet secretaries to take up near-constant residence on Capitol Hill to push the compromise.&lt;BR&gt;He called the measure a deal worthy of support. “In a good piece of legislation like this, and a difficult piece of legislation like this, one side doesn’t get everything they want,” he told business leaders and representatives of religious, Hispanic and agricultural communities earlier Tuesday. “It’s a careful compromise.”&lt;BR&gt;Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, D-Mass., an architect of the measure, sounded a similar tone. “This may not be perfect, but it is the best opportunity we have to do something significant and substantial, and I believe that the bill is good,” he said.&lt;BR&gt;Still, after a chaotic several weeks in which the measure survived several near-death experiences, it remained buffeted by intraparty squabbles.&lt;BR&gt;As senators were preparing for the showdown vote Tuesday morning, House Republicans meeting privately on the other side of the Capitol were plotting to register their opposition through a party resolution. The measure never saw a vote for procedural reasons, but an attempt to kill it failed overwhelmingly, signaling deep GOP skepticism.&lt;BR&gt;“It’s clear there’s a large number of the House Republicans who have serious concerns with the Senate bill,” said Rep. John Boehner, R-Ohio, the minority leader.&lt;/FONT&gt;&lt;/P&gt;</description> 
    <dc:creator>admin</dc:creator> 
    <pubDate>Wed, 27 Jun 2007 05:00:00 GMT</pubDate> 
    <guid isPermaLink="false">f1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:11354</guid> 
    
</item>
<item>
    <comments>http://www.dailycourtreview.com/Default.aspx?tabid=66&amp;articleType=ArticleView&amp;articleId=11353#Comments</comments> 
    <slash:comments>0</slash:comments> 
    <wfw:commentRss>http://www.dailycourtreview.com/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=66&amp;ModuleID=1140&amp;ArticleID=11353</wfw:commentRss> 
    <trackback:ping>http://www.dailycourtreview.com/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=11353&amp;PortalID=0&amp;TabID=66</trackback:ping> 
    <title>Consumer confidence down</title> 
    <link>http://www.dailycourtreview.com/Default.aspx?tabid=66&amp;articleType=ArticleView&amp;articleId=11353</link> 
    <description>&lt;P&gt;&lt;FONT size=4&gt;&#160; The Associated Press&lt;/FONT&gt;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&lt;FONT size=4&gt;Consumer confidence slid in June as Americans began to worry that high gas prices and a slumping housing industry may be undermining the health of the job market.&lt;BR&gt;The New York-based Conference Board said Tuesday that its Consumer Confidence Index, which is meant to measure how good shoppers feel about the economy and employment, fell to the lowest level in almost a year.&lt;BR&gt;&lt;/FONT&gt;&lt;FONT size=4&gt;At the same time, the Commerce Department said that new home sales dropped in May for the fourth time in the past five months.&lt;BR&gt;Both pieces of the economic puzzle dropped into a market that is already concerned about inflation, interest rates and economic growth ahead of a two-day meeting of the Federal Reserve that begins Wednesday. The Fed is expected to keep interest rates steady at 5.25 percent, but investors are watching for clues about future moves.&lt;BR&gt;&lt;/FONT&gt;&lt;FONT size=4&gt;The New York-based Conference Board said that its Consumer Confidence Index fell almost 5 points to 103.9, down from a revised 108.5 in May, reaching the lowest level since August 2006 when the reading was 100.2. Analysts had expected a reading of 106.&lt;BR&gt;&lt;/FONT&gt;&lt;FONT size=4&gt;“A perceived softening in present-day business and employment conditions are the major reasons behind this month’s pullback in confidence,” said Lynn Franco, director of The Conference Board Consumer Research Center in a statement. “Looking ahead, consumers remain subdued about short-term economic prospects. All in all, the glass remains half empty and half full.”&lt;BR&gt;The Present Situation, which measures how shoppers feel now about economic conditions, fell to 127.9 from 136.1 in May. The Expectations Index, which measures shoppers’ outlook for the next six months, edged down 87.9 from 90.1.&lt;BR&gt;Economists closely monitor confidence since consumer spending accounts for two-thirds of all U.S. economic activity. The nation’s retailers have had sluggish sales amid a weaker housing market and volatility in gasoline prices.&lt;BR&gt;“There are a lot of things weighing on consumer confidence,” said Gary Thayer, chief economist at A.G. Edwards &amp; Sons Inc.&lt;BR&gt;Thayer said that although consumers are worried about jobs, the employment situation remains healthy. He warned, however, that the longer gas prices remain high and the housing market stays weak, the more the perception will grow that the job market is shrinking.&lt;BR&gt;A healthy outlook for jobs has been helping consumers overlook the weakness in housing and higher gas prices. But there have been worrisome signs recently that the employment market may be fraying at the edges.&lt;BR&gt;On Thursday, the Labor Department reported that unemployment claims rose to the highest level since mid-April. Analysts said the large bump up in jobless claims did not change their view that the labor market remains healthy.&lt;BR&gt;But the Conference Board’s report - derived from responses through June 19th - revealed consumers are not as sanguine.&lt;BR&gt;Those saying jobs are “hard to get” inched up to 21.1 percent from 19.7 percent. Those claiming jobs are “plentiful” fell to 27.0 percent from 29.1 percent in May.&lt;BR&gt;Those expecting more jobs in the months ahead edged up to 14.0 percent from 13.6 percent, while those anticipating fewer jobs also increased to 17.0 percent from 15.6 percent.&lt;/FONT&gt;&lt;/P&gt;</description> 
    <dc:creator>admin</dc:creator> 
    <pubDate>Wed, 27 Jun 2007 05:00:00 GMT</pubDate> 
    <guid isPermaLink="false">f1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:11353</guid> 
    
</item>
<item>
    <comments>http://www.dailycourtreview.com/Default.aspx?tabid=66&amp;articleType=ArticleView&amp;articleId=10232#Comments</comments> 
    <slash:comments>0</slash:comments> 
    <wfw:commentRss>http://www.dailycourtreview.com/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=66&amp;ModuleID=1140&amp;ArticleID=10232</wfw:commentRss> 
    <trackback:ping>http://www.dailycourtreview.com/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=10232&amp;PortalID=0&amp;TabID=66</trackback:ping> 
    <title>Homes sales decline</title> 
    <link>http://www.dailycourtreview.com/Default.aspx?tabid=66&amp;articleType=ArticleView&amp;articleId=10232</link> 
    <description>&lt;P&gt;&lt;FONT size=4&gt;The Associated Press&lt;/FONT&gt;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&lt;FONT size=4&gt;Sales of new homes fell in May for the fourth time in the past five months, providing further evidence of a continued slump in housing.&lt;BR&gt;The Commerce Department reported Tuesday that sales of new single-family homes dropped by 1.6 percent last month to a seasonally adjusted annual rate of 915,000 units. That followed a 12.5 percent surge in April sales, which was the biggest one-month jump in more than a decade.&lt;BR&gt;But the April increase, which analysts believe was heavily influenced by special factors such as the weather, marked the only strength this year. In every other month, sales have fallen as builders struggle to deal with the most serious downturn in housing in 16 years.&lt;BR&gt;The median price of a new home sold in April was $236,100, down 0.9 percent from the price a year ago. The median is the midpoint where half the homes sold for more and half for less.&lt;BR&gt;The slump in sales affected most parts of the country. Sales were down 7.3 percent in the South, where half of new homes are sold, and fell an even larger 11 percent in the Northeast. Sales were also off in the West by 1.9 percent. The only region of the country that saw an increase was the Midwest, where sales jumped by 30.8 percent.&lt;BR&gt;Home prices are expected to fall further in coming months as builders slash prices more to trim a glut of unsold homes in the face of deepening troubles in housing. The National Association of Home Builders reported last week that builder confidence has fallen to the lowest level in 16 years.&lt;BR&gt;The troubles in housing follow a prolonged boom in which sales of both new and existing homes set records for five consecutive years. That ended in 2006 as investors, who had been lured into the market by soaring home prices, began to retreat in the face of rising mortgage rates and slumping prices, especially in the once red-hot markets.&lt;BR&gt;Adding to the problems are spreading problems in mortgage lending, reflected by rising foreclosure rates as borrowers are unable to meet payments on adjustable rate loans which are now resetting at higher rates.&lt;BR&gt;The inventory of unsold homes did drop by 1.1 percent May to 536,000 units but because the sales pace slowed, the length of time it would take to deplete inventories actually rose to 7.1 months, up from 7.0 months in April.&lt;BR&gt;The decline in new home sales followed a report Monday that showed sales of existing homes, which make up more than four-fifths of home sales, fell for a third straight month in May to a seasonally adjusted annual rate of 5.99 million units. The median price of an existing home dropped to $223,700, down by 2.1 percent from a year ago. It was the 10th consecutive fall in prices compared to a year ago, the longest stretch on record.&lt;BR&gt;The overall economy slowed to an anemic growth rate of 0.6 percent in the first three months of this year, the slowest in more than four years, but Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke has said that he believes the economy will rebound in coming months despite the fact that the housing slowdown is lasting longer than the Fed had expected.&lt;BR&gt;Many analysts believe that growth in the current April-June quarter will come in at a more respectable 3.5 percent rate even though they say that the drag from housing should last for the rest of this year.&lt;/FONT&gt;&lt;/P&gt;</description> 
    <dc:creator>admin</dc:creator> 
    <pubDate>Wed, 27 Jun 2007 05:00:00 GMT</pubDate> 
    <guid isPermaLink="false">f1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:10232</guid> 
    
</item>
<item>
    <comments>http://www.dailycourtreview.com/Default.aspx?tabid=66&amp;articleType=ArticleView&amp;articleId=10167#Comments</comments> 
    <slash:comments>0</slash:comments> 
    <wfw:commentRss>http://www.dailycourtreview.com/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=66&amp;ModuleID=1140&amp;ArticleID=10167</wfw:commentRss> 
    <trackback:ping>http://www.dailycourtreview.com/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=10167&amp;PortalID=0&amp;TabID=66</trackback:ping> 
    <title>High court blocks Texas execution</title> 
    <link>http://www.dailycourtreview.com/Default.aspx?tabid=66&amp;articleType=ArticleView&amp;articleId=10167</link> 
    <description>&lt;FONT size=4&gt;A divided Supreme Court on Thursday blocked the execution of a Texas killer whose lawyers argued that he should not be put to death because he is mentally ill.&lt;BR&gt;The court ruled 5-4 in the case of Scott Louis Panetti, who shot his in-laws to death 15 years ago in front of his wife and young daughter.&lt;BR&gt;The convicted murderer says that he suffers from a severe documented illness that is the source of gross delusions. “This argument, we hold, should have been considered,” said Justice Anthony Kennedy, who wrote the majority opinion.&lt;BR&gt;Panetti’s lawyers wanted the court to determine that people who cannot understand the connection between their crime and punishment because of mental illness may not be executed.&lt;BR&gt;The Eighth Amendment of the Constitution bars “the execution of a person who is so lacking in rational understanding that he cannot comprehend that he is being put to death because of the crime he was convicted of committing,” they said in court papers.&lt;BR&gt;In dissent, Justice Clarence Thomas said that Panetti had petitioned the federal courts twice in his case, but that the law allows only one petition.&lt;BR&gt;“The court bends over backwards to allow Panetti” to bring his current claim, despite no evidence that his condition has worsened, or even changed, since 1995, Thomas wrote.&lt;BR&gt;One of Panetti’s lawyers, Scott Hampton of Austin, Texas, said he was relieved.&lt;BR&gt;“Executing Scott Panetti would have been a mindless, meaningless, miserable spectacle,” said Hampton.&lt;BR&gt;Siding with Kennedy in the majority were Justices John Paul Stevens, David Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer.&lt;BR&gt;Joining Thomas in dissent were Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Antonin Scalia and Samuel Alito.&lt;BR&gt;Texas said the court should reject Panetti’s appeal on procedural grounds. But it also argued that the court should set a tougher standard for mental illness exceptions to capital punishment. Only if a Death Row inmate “lacks the capacity to recognize that his punishment both is the result of his being convicted of capital murder and will cause his death” should his execution be halted, the state said. Panetti is competent on that basis, it said.&lt;BR&gt;Panetti was condemned for the September 1992 slayings of his estranged wife’s parents, Joe Alvarado, 55, and Amanda Alvarado, 56, at their Fredericksburg home in the Texas Hill Country. His wife was living with them at the time. A week earlier she obtained a court order to keep him away.&lt;BR&gt;His wife and 3-year-old daughter, sprayed with blood when Panetti shot his in-laws, were held hostage until he surrendered after a lengthy standoff with police. He blamed it all on “Sarge,” one of his multiple personalities.&lt;BR&gt;A former ranch hand and native of Hayward, Wis., Panetti had a history of mental problems before his conviction, recording 14 hospital stays over 11 years.&lt;BR&gt;Four courts have said he was competent when he fired his trial lawyers. A jury and two courts rejected his defense of not guilty by reason of insanity. He personally argued that only an insane person could prove the insanity defense, dressing in cowboy clothing and submitting an initial witness list that included Jesus Christ and John F. Kennedy.&lt;BR&gt;Then-Justice Lewis Powell said 20 years ago that a person may not be put to death if he cannot perceive “the connection between his crime and his punishment.”&lt;BR&gt;The case is Panetti v. Quarterman, 06-6407.&lt;/FONT&gt;</description> 
    <dc:creator>Michael</dc:creator> 
    <pubDate>Wed, 27 Jun 2007 05:00:00 GMT</pubDate> 
    <guid isPermaLink="false">f1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:10167</guid> 
    
</item>
<item>
    <comments>http://www.dailycourtreview.com/Default.aspx?tabid=66&amp;articleType=ArticleView&amp;articleId=10053#Comments</comments> 
    <slash:comments>0</slash:comments> 
    <wfw:commentRss>http://www.dailycourtreview.com/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=66&amp;ModuleID=1140&amp;ArticleID=10053</wfw:commentRss> 
    <trackback:ping>http://www.dailycourtreview.com/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=10053&amp;PortalID=0&amp;TabID=66</trackback:ping> 
    <title>Immigration bill passes test to return to Senate floor</title> 
    <link>http://www.dailycourtreview.com/Default.aspx?tabid=66&amp;articleType=ArticleView&amp;articleId=10053</link> 
    <description>&lt;P&gt;&lt;FONT size=4&gt;&#160;The Associated Press&lt;/FONT&gt;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&lt;FONT size=4&gt;The Senate voted Tuesday to jump-start a stalled immigration measure to legalize millions of unlawful immigrants.&lt;BR&gt;President Bush said the bill offered a “historic opportunity for Congress to act,” and appeared optimistic about its passage by week’s end.&lt;BR&gt;The pivotal test-vote was 64-35 to revive the divisive legislation. It still faces formidable obstacles in the Senate, including bitter opposition by GOP conservatives and attempts by some waverers in both parties to revise its key elements.&lt;BR&gt;Supporters needed 60 votes to scale procedural hurdles and return to the bill. A similar test-vote earlier this month found just 45 supporters, only seven of them Republicans.&lt;BR&gt;Tuesday’s outcome was far from conclusive, however. The measure still must overcome another make-or-break vote as early as Thursday that will also require the backing of 60 senators, and there is no guarantee that it will ultimately attract even the simple majority it needs to pass.&lt;BR&gt;The Senate was preparing to begin voting as early as Tuesday afternoon on some two dozen amendments that have the potential to either sap its support or draw new backers.&lt;BR&gt;Republicans and Democrats alike are deeply conflicted over the measure, which also creates a temporary worker program, strengthens border security and institutes a new system for weeding out illegal immigrants from workplaces.&lt;BR&gt;Bush has mounted an unusually personal effort to defuse Republican opposition to the bill, appearing at a Senate party lunch earlier this month and dispatching two Cabinet secretaries to take up near-constant residence on Capitol Hill to push the compromise.&lt;BR&gt;He called the measure a deal worthy of support. “In a good piece of legislation like this, and a difficult piece of legislation like this, one side doesn’t get everything they want,” he told business leaders and representatives of religious, Hispanic and agricultural communities earlier Tuesday. “It’s a careful compromise.”&lt;BR&gt;Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, D-Mass., an architect of the measure, sounded a similar tone. “This may not be perfect, but it is the best opportunity we have to do something significant and substantial, and I believe that the bill is good,” he said.&lt;BR&gt;Still, after a chaotic several weeks in which the measure survived several near-death experiences, it remained buffeted by intraparty squabbles.&lt;BR&gt;As senators were preparing for the showdown vote Tuesday morning, House Republicans meeting privately on the other side of the Capitol were plotting to register their opposition through a party resolution. The measure never saw a vote for procedural reasons, but an attempt to kill it failed overwhelmingly, signaling deep GOP skepticism.&lt;BR&gt;“It’s clear there’s a large number of the House Republicans who have serious concerns with the Senate bill,” said Rep. John Boehner, R-Ohio, the minority leader.&lt;/FONT&gt;&lt;/P&gt;</description> 
    <dc:creator>admin</dc:creator> 
    <pubDate>Wed, 27 Jun 2007 05:00:00 GMT</pubDate> 
    <guid isPermaLink="false">f1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:10053</guid> 
    
</item>
<item>
    <comments>http://www.dailycourtreview.com/Default.aspx?tabid=66&amp;articleType=ArticleView&amp;articleId=10052#Comments</comments> 
    <slash:comments>0</slash:comments> 
    <wfw:commentRss>http://www.dailycourtreview.com/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=66&amp;ModuleID=1140&amp;ArticleID=10052</wfw:commentRss> 
    <trackback:ping>http://www.dailycourtreview.com/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=10052&amp;PortalID=0&amp;TabID=66</trackback:ping> 
    <title>Consumer confidence down</title> 
    <link>http://www.dailycourtreview.com/Default.aspx?tabid=66&amp;articleType=ArticleView&amp;articleId=10052</link> 
    <description>&lt;P&gt;&lt;FONT size=4&gt;&#160; The Associated Press&lt;/FONT&gt;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&lt;FONT size=4&gt;Consumer confidence slid in June as Americans began to worry that high gas prices and a slumping housing industry may be undermining the health of the job market.&lt;BR&gt;The New York-based Conference Board said Tuesday that its Consumer Confidence Index, which is meant to measure how good shoppers feel about the economy and employment, fell to the lowest level in almost a year.&lt;BR&gt;&lt;/FONT&gt;&lt;FONT size=4&gt;At the same time, the Commerce Department said that new home sales dropped in May for the fourth time in the past five months.&lt;BR&gt;Both pieces of the economic puzzle dropped into a market that is already concerned about inflation, interest rates and economic growth ahead of a two-day meeting of the Federal Reserve that begins Wednesday. The Fed is expected to keep interest rates steady at 5.25 percent, but investors are watching for clues about future moves.&lt;BR&gt;&lt;/FONT&gt;&lt;FONT size=4&gt;The New York-based Conference Board said that its Consumer Confidence Index fell almost 5 points to 103.9, down from a revised 108.5 in May, reaching the lowest level since August 2006 when the reading was 100.2. Analysts had expected a reading of 106.&lt;BR&gt;&lt;/FONT&gt;&lt;FONT size=4&gt;“A perceived softening in present-day business and employment conditions are the major reasons behind this month’s pullback in confidence,” said Lynn Franco, director of The Conference Board Consumer Research Center in a statement. “Looking ahead, consumers remain subdued about short-term economic prospects. All in all, the glass remains half empty and half full.”&lt;BR&gt;The Present Situation, which measures how shoppers feel now about economic conditions, fell to 127.9 from 136.1 in May. The Expectations Index, which measures shoppers’ outlook for the next six months, edged down 87.9 from 90.1.&lt;BR&gt;Economists closely monitor confidence since consumer spending accounts for two-thirds of all U.S. economic activity. The nation’s retailers have had sluggish sales amid a weaker housing market and volatility in gasoline prices.&lt;BR&gt;“There are a lot of things weighing on consumer confidence,” said Gary Thayer, chief economist at A.G. Edwards &amp; Sons Inc.&lt;BR&gt;Thayer said that although consumers are worried about jobs, the employment situation remains healthy. He warned, however, that the longer gas prices remain high and the housing market stays weak, the more the perception will grow that the job market is shrinking.&lt;BR&gt;A healthy outlook for jobs has been helping consumers overlook the weakness in housing and higher gas prices. But there have been worrisome signs recently that the employment market may be fraying at the edges.&lt;BR&gt;On Thursday, the Labor Department reported that unemployment claims rose to the highest level since mid-April. Analysts said the large bump up in jobless claims did not change their view that the labor market remains healthy.&lt;BR&gt;But the Conference Board’s report - derived from responses through June 19th - revealed consumers are not as sanguine.&lt;BR&gt;Those saying jobs are “hard to get” inched up to 21.1 percent from 19.7 percent. Those claiming jobs are “plentiful” fell to 27.0 percent from 29.1 percent in May.&lt;BR&gt;Those expecting more jobs in the months ahead edged up to 14.0 percent from 13.6 percent, while those anticipating fewer jobs also increased to 17.0 percent from 15.6 percent.&lt;/FONT&gt;&lt;/P&gt;</description> 
    <dc:creator>admin</dc:creator> 
    <pubDate>Wed, 27 Jun 2007 05:00:00 GMT</pubDate> 
    <guid isPermaLink="false">f1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:10052</guid> 
    
</item>
<item>
    <comments>http://www.dailycourtreview.com/Default.aspx?tabid=66&amp;articleType=ArticleView&amp;articleId=11352#Comments</comments> 
    <slash:comments>0</slash:comments> 
    <wfw:commentRss>http://www.dailycourtreview.com/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=66&amp;ModuleID=1140&amp;ArticleID=11352</wfw:commentRss> 
    <trackback:ping>http://www.dailycourtreview.com/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=11352&amp;PortalID=0&amp;TabID=66</trackback:ping> 
    <title>Justices take no action on Enron liability case</title> 
    <link>http://www.dailycourtreview.com/Default.aspx?tabid=66&amp;articleType=ArticleView&amp;articleId=11352</link> 
    <description>&lt;P&gt;&lt;FONT size=4&gt;The Associated Press&lt;/FONT&gt;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&lt;FONT size=4&gt;The Supreme Court on Monday put off deciding on the Enron scandal, taking no action in a securities fraud case with billions of dollars at stake for victimized investors.&lt;BR&gt;The case asks whether Enron shareholders can pursue a lawsuit against Wall Street investment banks that did business with the Texas energy company.&lt;BR&gt;The justices have already agreed to consider a similar suit accusing two equipment manufacturers, Motorola Inc. and a unit of Cisco Systems Inc., of colluding with cable TV provider Charter Communications Inc. to deceive investors.&lt;BR&gt;At issue in both cases is whether shareholders can collect damages from investment banks, attorneys and other parties that have aided fraud by their corporate clients.&lt;BR&gt;Dan Newman, a spokesman for the Enron plaintiffs’ law firm Lerach Coughlin, said the justices likely deferred action on the Enron case in part because they have already agreed to hear the Charter dispute.&lt;BR&gt;The Charter case has attracted significant attention because the Bush administration recently decided against filing a brief on behalf of the investors, even though the Securities and Exchange Commission had recommended doing so.&lt;BR&gt;Both President Bush and Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson weighed in on the side of the investment banks.&lt;BR&gt;Members of the House Financial Services Committee will likely press the five SEC commissioners on their views regarding the two cases during a hearing set for Tuesday.&lt;BR&gt;Three months ago, a federal appeals court blocked the $40 billion Enron investors’ suit against Merrill Lynch &amp; Co., Credit Suisse First Boston and Barclays Bank PLC.&lt;BR&gt;The suit alleged that they played roles in the accounting fraud that led to Enron’s collapse.&lt;BR&gt;Shareholders and investors in the class-action lawsuit had asked the Supreme Court to review the ruling by the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. That court reversed a decision by U.S. District Judge Melinda Harmon in Houston, who had said shareholders could sue as a class.&lt;BR&gt;Attorneys general from 30 states have sided with Enron shareholders in their bid for a class action.&lt;BR&gt;The appeals court decision put the case on hold, which was set to go to trial April 16.&lt;BR&gt;“The banks should be held accountable,” said William Lerach, who represents the Regents of the University of California, the lead plaintiffs in the litigation. “Beyond shielding them from redress in the Enron case, the 5th Circuit’s decision gives other corporations the green light to commit fraud without consequence in the future, threatens the credibility of the securities markets and leaves investors without any legal recourse.”&lt;BR&gt;So far Enron plaintiffs have recouped $7.3 billion, mostly from such financial institutions as Bank of America, JPMorgan Chase &amp; Co., Citigroup and Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce.&lt;BR&gt;Besides Merrill Lynch, Credit Suisse and Barclays, the remaining defendants include several former Enron officers: Jeff Skilling, the chief executive; Richard Causey, chief accounting officer; Richard Buy, chief risk officer; Jeff McMahon, treasurer; and Mark Koenig, executive vice president of investor relations. &lt;/FONT&gt;&lt;/P&gt;</description> 
    <dc:creator>admin</dc:creator> 
    <pubDate>Tue, 26 Jun 2007 05:00:00 GMT</pubDate> 
    <guid isPermaLink="false">f1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:11352</guid> 
    
</item>
<item>
    <comments>http://www.dailycourtreview.com/Default.aspx?tabid=66&amp;articleType=ArticleView&amp;articleId=11351#Comments</comments> 
    <slash:comments>0</slash:comments> 
    <wfw:commentRss>http://www.dailycourtreview.com/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=66&amp;ModuleID=1140&amp;ArticleID=11351</wfw:commentRss> 
    <trackback:ping>http://www.dailycourtreview.com/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=11351&amp;PortalID=0&amp;TabID=66</trackback:ping> 
    <title>Texas gets blade-testing</title> 
    <link>http://www.dailycourtreview.com/Default.aspx?tabid=66&amp;articleType=ArticleView&amp;articleId=11351</link> 
    <description>&lt;P&gt;&lt;FONT size=4&gt;The Associated Press&lt;/FONT&gt;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&lt;FONT size=4&gt;A site on the Gulf Coast near Corpus Christi is set to become home to one of two U.S. testing centers for the next-generation of wind-turbine blades, a $20 million project that enhances Texas’ position as the nation’s leader in wind-generated energy.&lt;BR&gt;The U.S. Department of Energy announced Monday that Texas and Massachusetts had been chosen to receive up to $2 million each to equip the centers, which are expected to be operational in 2009.&lt;BR&gt;The Lone Star Wind Alliance, made up of public and private entities including several Texas universities, has pledged $18 million for initial capital and startup costs. Oil major BP PLC donated 22 acres for the site in Ingleside and another $250,000 in funding.&lt;BR&gt;“The facilities are essential to ensuring the U.S. has the capacity to test the blades necessary to run new megawatt-scale and greater wind turbines - turbines that’ll help the country ultimately take advantage of our abundant wind energy resources,” said Assistant Secretary of Energy Andy Karsner.&lt;BR&gt;Blades have become too large to test at the government’s existing facility in Colorado, Karsner said. The new facilities will have the capacity to test blades up to 330 feet long. Blade testing is required to meet wind turbine design standards.&lt;BR&gt;“For us to expand wind power further, we’re going to need the ability to robustly test the wind components before they go into mass production and take their place in our national wind fleet,” Karsner said.&lt;BR&gt;Long recognized for its oil and gas production, Texas last year gained acclaim by surpassing California as the nation’s top producer of wind energy, and that capacity is forecast to grow rapidly in the next several years.&lt;BR&gt;Texas’ wind-power capacity stood at 2,749 megawatts at the end of March, enough to power more than 600,000 average-size homes a year, according to the American Wind Energy Association. Next up was California with 2,376 megawatts, the association said.&lt;BR&gt;A recent study for Congress by the National Research Council said wind farms could generate up to 7 percent of the nation’s electricity in 15 years - up from less than 1 percent today.&lt;BR&gt;Texas Land Commissioner Jerry Patterson said the testing center and the state’s wind-friendly climate should make the state an attractive site for companies that build the blades. He said it’s an opportunity to position Texas as a leader in the growing wind business.&lt;BR&gt;“This is the birth of a new industry here in Texas,” Patterson said. “Once we build these test facilities, the wind turbine and blade manufacturers will come.”&lt;/FONT&gt;&lt;/P&gt;</description> 
    <dc:creator>admin</dc:creator> 
    <pubDate>Tue, 26 Jun 2007 05:00:00 GMT</pubDate> 
    <guid isPermaLink="false">f1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:11351</guid> 
    
</item>
<item>
    <comments>http://www.dailycourtreview.com/Default.aspx?tabid=66&amp;articleType=ArticleView&amp;articleId=11350#Comments</comments> 
    <slash:comments>0</slash:comments> 
    <wfw:commentRss>http://www.dailycourtreview.com/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=66&amp;ModuleID=1140&amp;ArticleID=11350</wfw:commentRss> 
    <trackback:ping>http://www.dailycourtreview.com/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=11350&amp;PortalID=0&amp;TabID=66</trackback:ping> 
    <title>Judge rules in favor of dry cleaner over missing pants</title> 
    <link>http://www.dailycourtreview.com/Default.aspx?tabid=66&amp;articleType=ArticleView&amp;articleId=11350</link> 
    <description>&lt;P&gt;&lt;FONT size=4&gt;The Associated Press&lt;/FONT&gt;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&lt;FONT size=4&gt;A judge ruled Monday that no pair of pants is worth $54 million, rejecting a lawsuit that took a dry cleaner’s promise of “Satisfaction Guaranteed” to its most litigious extreme.&lt;BR&gt;Roy L. Pearson became a worldwide symbol of legal abuse by seeking jackpot justice from a simple complaint - that a neighborhood dry cleaners lost the pants from a new suit and tried to give him a pair that were not his.&lt;BR&gt;His claim, reduced from $67 million, was based on a strict interpretation of the city’s consumer protection law - which imposes fines of $1,500 per violation, per day - as well as damages for inconvenience, mental anguish and attorney’s fees for representing himself.&lt;BR&gt;But District of Columbia Superior Court Judge Judith Bartnoff ruled that the owners of Custom Cleaners did not violate the consumer protection law by failing to live up to Pearson’s expectations of the “Satisfaction Guaranteed” sign once displayed in the store window.&lt;BR&gt;“A reasonable consumer would not interpret ‘Satisfaction Guaranteed’ to mean that a merchant is required to satisfy a customer’s unreasonable demands,” the judge wrote.&lt;BR&gt;Bartnoff wrote that Pearson, an administrative law judge, also failed to prove that the pants the dry cleaner tried to return were not the pants he took in.&lt;BR&gt;Bartnoff ordered Pearson to pay clerical court costs of about $1,000 to defendants Soo Chung, Jin Nam Chung and Ki Y. Chung. A motion to recover the Chungs’ tens of thousands of dollars in attorney fees will be considered later.&lt;BR&gt;“Judge Bartnoff has spoken loudly in suggesting that, while consumers should be protected, abusive lawsuits like this will not be tolerated,” the Chung’s attorney, Chris Manning, said in a statement. “Judge Bartnoff has chosen common sense and reasonableness over irrationality and unbridled venom.”&lt;BR&gt;Speaking to reporters outside their dry cleaners, the Chungs said they held no hard feelings toward Pearson. “If he wants to continue using our services, then, yes, he is welcome,” Soo Chung, a Korean immigrant, said through a translator.&lt;BR&gt;Pearson, who came to court during the two-day trial earlier this month carrying the offending pair of pants in a suit bag, did not respond to a call and an e-mail seeking comment.&lt;BR&gt;The case began in 2005 when Pearson became a judge and brought several suits for alterations to Custom Cleaners in Washington. A pair of pants from one suit was missing when he requested it two days later.&lt;BR&gt;Pearson asked the cleaners for the full price of the suit: more than $1,000.&lt;BR&gt;But a week later, the Chungs said the pants had been found and refused to pay. Pearson said those were not his pants and decided to sue.&lt;BR&gt;Over the course of the litigation, the Chung’s said they made three settlement offers - $3,000, then $4,600, then $12,000 - all rejected.&lt;BR&gt;The case garnered international attention and renewed calls for litigation reform.&lt;BR&gt;“This case was giving American justice a black eye around the world, and it was all the more upsetting because it was a judge and lawyer who was bringing the suit,” said Paul Rothstein, a Georgetown University law professor.&lt;BR&gt;Rothstein said Monday’s ruling “restores one’s confidence in the legal system.”&lt;/FONT&gt;&lt;/P&gt;</description> 
    <dc:creator>admin</dc:creator> 
    <pubDate>Tue, 26 Jun 2007 05:00:00 GMT</pubDate> 
    <guid isPermaLink="false">f1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:11350</guid> 
    
</item>
<item>
    <comments>http://www.dailycourtreview.com/Default.aspx?tabid=66&amp;articleType=ArticleView&amp;articleId=10051#Comments</comments> 
    <slash:comments>0</slash:comments> 
    <wfw:commentRss>http://www.dailycourtreview.com/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=66&amp;ModuleID=1140&amp;ArticleID=10051</wfw:commentRss> 
    <trackback:ping>http://www.dailycourtreview.com/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=10051&amp;PortalID=0&amp;TabID=66</trackback:ping> 
    <title>Justices take no action on Enron liability case</title> 
    <link>http://www.dailycourtreview.com/Default.aspx?tabid=66&amp;articleType=ArticleView&amp;articleId=10051</link> 
    <description>&lt;P&gt;&lt;FONT size=4&gt;The Associated Press&lt;/FONT&gt;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&lt;FONT size=4&gt;The Supreme Court on Monday put off deciding on the Enron scandal, taking no action in a securities fraud case with billions of dollars at stake for victimized investors.&lt;BR&gt;The case asks whether Enron shareholders can pursue a lawsuit against Wall Street investment banks that did business with the Texas energy company.&lt;BR&gt;The justices have already agreed to consider a similar suit accusing two equipment manufacturers, Motorola Inc. and a unit of Cisco Systems Inc., of colluding with cable TV provider Charter Communications Inc. to deceive investors.&lt;BR&gt;At issue in both cases is whether shareholders can collect damages from investment banks, attorneys and other parties that have aided fraud by their corporate clients.&lt;BR&gt;Dan Newman, a spokesman for the Enron plaintiffs’ law firm Lerach Coughlin, said the justices likely deferred action on the Enron case in part because they have already agreed to hear the Charter dispute.&lt;BR&gt;The Charter case has attracted significant attention because the Bush administration recently decided against filing a brief on behalf of the investors, even though the Securities and Exchange Commission had recommended doing so.&lt;BR&gt;Both President Bush and Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson weighed in on the side of the investment banks.&lt;BR&gt;Members of the House Financial Services Committee will likely press the five SEC commissioners on their views regarding the two cases during a hearing set for Tuesday.&lt;BR&gt;Three months ago, a federal appeals court blocked the $40 billion Enron investors’ suit against Merrill Lynch &amp; Co., Credit Suisse First Boston and Barclays Bank PLC.&lt;BR&gt;The suit alleged that they played roles in the accounting fraud that led to Enron’s collapse.&lt;BR&gt;Shareholders and investors in the class-action lawsuit had asked the Supreme Court to review the ruling by the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. That court reversed a decision by U.S. District Judge Melinda Harmon in Houston, who had said shareholders could sue as a class.&lt;BR&gt;Attorneys general from 30 states have sided with Enron shareholders in their bid for a class action.&lt;BR&gt;The appeals court decision put the case on hold, which was set to go to trial April 16.&lt;BR&gt;“The banks should be held accountable,” said William Lerach, who represents the Regents of the University of California, the lead plaintiffs in the litigation. “Beyond shielding them from redress in the Enron case, the 5th Circuit’s decision gives other corporations the green light to commit fraud without consequence in the future, threatens the credibility of the securities markets and leaves investors without any legal recourse.”&lt;BR&gt;So far Enron plaintiffs have recouped $7.3 billion, mostly from such financial institutions as Bank of America, JPMorgan Chase &amp; Co., Citigroup and Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce.&lt;BR&gt;Besides Merrill Lynch, Credit Suisse and Barclays, the remaining defendants include several former Enron officers: Jeff Skilling, the chief executive; Richard Causey, chief accounting officer; Richard Buy, chief risk officer; Jeff McMahon, treasurer; and Mark Koenig, executive vice president of investor relations. &lt;/FONT&gt;&lt;/P&gt;</description> 
    <dc:creator>admin</dc:creator> 
    <pubDate>Tue, 26 Jun 2007 05:00:00 GMT</pubDate> 
    <guid isPermaLink="false">f1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:10051</guid> 
    
</item>
<item>
    <comments>http://www.dailycourtreview.com/Default.aspx?tabid=66&amp;articleType=ArticleView&amp;articleId=10050#Comments</comments> 
    <slash:comments>0</slash:comments> 
    <wfw:commentRss>http://www.dailycourtreview.com/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=66&amp;ModuleID=1140&amp;ArticleID=10050</wfw:commentRss> 
    <trackback:ping>http://www.dailycourtreview.com/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=10050&amp;PortalID=0&amp;TabID=66</trackback:ping> 
    <title>Texas gets blade-testing</title> 
    <link>http://www.dailycourtreview.com/Default.aspx?tabid=66&amp;articleType=ArticleView&amp;articleId=10050</link> 
    <description>&lt;P&gt;&lt;FONT size=4&gt;The Associated Press&lt;/FONT&gt;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&lt;FONT size=4&gt;A site on the Gulf Coast near Corpus Christi is set to become home to one of two U.S. testing centers for the next-generation of wind-turbine blades, a $20 million project that enhances Texas’ position as the nation’s leader in wind-generated energy.&lt;BR&gt;The U.S. Department of Energy announced Monday that Texas and Massachusetts had been chosen to receive up to $2 million each to equip the centers, which are expected to be operational in 2009.&lt;BR&gt;The Lone Star Wind Alliance, made up of public and private entities including several Texas universities, has pledged $18 million for initial capital and startup costs. Oil major BP PLC donated 22 acres for the site in Ingleside and another $250,000 in funding.&lt;BR&gt;“The facilities are essential to ensuring the U.S. has the capacity to test the blades necessary to run new megawatt-scale and greater wind turbines - turbines that’ll help the country ultimately take advantage of our abundant wind energy resources,” said Assistant Secretary of Energy Andy Karsner.&lt;BR&gt;Blades have become too large to test at the government’s existing facility in Colorado, Karsner said. The new facilities will have the capacity to test blades up to 330 feet long. Blade testing is required to meet wind turbine design standards.&lt;BR&gt;“For us to expand wind power further, we’re going to need the ability to robustly test the wind components before they go into mass production and take their place in our national wind fleet,” Karsner said.&lt;BR&gt;Long recognized for its oil and gas production, Texas last year gained acclaim by surpassing California as the nation’s top producer of wind energy, and that capacity is forecast to grow rapidly in the next several years.&lt;BR&gt;Texas’ wind-power capacity stood at 2,749 megawatts at the end of March, enough to power more than 600,000 average-size homes a year, according to the American Wind Energy Association. Next up was California with 2,376 megawatts, the association said.&lt;BR&gt;A recent study for Congress by the National Research Council said wind farms could generate up to 7 percent of the nation’s electricity in 15 years - up from less than 1 percent today.&lt;BR&gt;Texas Land Commissioner Jerry Patterson said the testing center and the state’s wind-friendly climate should make the state an attractive site for companies that build the blades. He said it’s an opportunity to position Texas as a leader in the growing wind business.&lt;BR&gt;“This is the birth of a new industry here in Texas,” Patterson said. “Once we build these test facilities, the wind turbine and blade manufacturers will come.”&lt;/FONT&gt;&lt;/P&gt;</description> 
    <dc:creator>admin</dc:creator> 
    <pubDate>Tue, 26 Jun 2007 05:00:00 GMT</pubDate> 
    <guid isPermaLink="false">f1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:10050</guid> 
    
</item>
<item>
    <comments>http://www.dailycourtreview.com/Default.aspx?tabid=66&amp;articleType=ArticleView&amp;articleId=10049#Comments</comments> 
    <slash:comments>0</slash:comments> 
    <wfw:commentRss>http://www.dailycourtreview.com/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=66&amp;ModuleID=1140&amp;ArticleID=10049</wfw:commentRss> 
    <trackback:ping>http://www.dailycourtreview.com/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=10049&amp;PortalID=0&amp;TabID=66</trackback:ping> 
    <title>Judge rules in favor of dry cleaner over missing pants</title> 
    <link>http://www.dailycourtreview.com/Default.aspx?tabid=66&amp;articleType=ArticleView&amp;articleId=10049</link> 
    <description>&lt;P&gt;&lt;FONT size=4&gt;The Associated Press&lt;/FONT&gt;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&lt;FONT size=4&gt;A judge ruled Monday that no pair of pants is worth $54 million, rejecting a lawsuit that took a dry cleaner’s promise of “Satisfaction Guaranteed” to its most litigious extreme.&lt;BR&gt;Roy L. Pearson became a worldwide symbol of legal abuse by seeking jackpot justice from a simple complaint - that a neighborhood dry cleaners lost the pants from a new suit and tried to give him a pair that were not his.&lt;BR&gt;His claim, reduced from $67 million, was based on a strict interpretation of the city’s consumer protection law - which imposes fines of $1,500 per violation, per day - as well as damages for inconvenience, mental anguish and attorney’s fees for representing himself.&lt;BR&gt;But District of Columbia Superior Court Judge Judith Bartnoff ruled that the owners of Custom Cleaners did not violate the consumer protection law by failing to live up to Pearson’s expectations of the “Satisfaction Guaranteed” sign once displayed in the store window.&lt;BR&gt;“A reasonable consumer would not interpret ‘Satisfaction Guaranteed’ to mean that a merchant is required to satisfy a customer’s unreasonable demands,” the judge wrote.&lt;BR&gt;Bartnoff wrote that Pearson, an administrative law judge, also failed to prove that the pants the dry cleaner tried to return were not the pants he took in.&lt;BR&gt;Bartnoff ordered Pearson to pay clerical court costs of about $1,000 to defendants Soo Chung, Jin Nam Chung and Ki Y. Chung. A motion to recover the Chungs’ tens of thousands of dollars in attorney fees will be considered later.&lt;BR&gt;“Judge Bartnoff has spoken loudly in suggesting that, while consumers should be protected, abusive lawsuits like this will not be tolerated,” the Chung’s attorney, Chris Manning, said in a statement. “Judge Bartnoff has chosen common sense and reasonableness over irrationality and unbridled venom.”&lt;BR&gt;Speaking to reporters outside their dry cleaners, the Chungs said they held no hard feelings toward Pearson. “If he wants to continue using our services, then, yes, he is welcome,” Soo Chung, a Korean immigrant, said through a translator.&lt;BR&gt;Pearson, who came to court during the two-day trial earlier this month carrying the offending pair of pants in a suit bag, did not respond to a call and an e-mail seeking comment.&lt;BR&gt;The case began in 2005 when Pearson became a judge and brought several suits for alterations to Custom Cleaners in Washington. A pair of pants from one suit was missing when he requested it two days later.&lt;BR&gt;Pearson asked the cleaners for the full price of the suit: more than $1,000.&lt;BR&gt;But a week later, the Chungs said the pants had been found and refused to pay. Pearson said those were not his pants and decided to sue.&lt;BR&gt;Over the course of the litigation, the Chung’s said they made three settlement offers - $3,000, then $4,600, then $12,000 - all rejected.&lt;BR&gt;The case garnered international attention and renewed calls for litigation reform.&lt;BR&gt;“This case was giving American justice a black eye around the world, and it was all the more upsetting because it was a judge and lawyer who was bringing the suit,” said Paul Rothstein, a Georgetown University law professor.&lt;BR&gt;Rothstein said Monday’s ruling “restores one’s confidence in the legal system.”&lt;/FONT&gt;&lt;/P&gt;</description> 
    <dc:creator>admin</dc:creator> 
    <pubDate>Tue, 26 Jun 2007 05:00:00 GMT</pubDate> 
    <guid isPermaLink="false">f1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:10049</guid> 
    
</item>
<item>
    <comments>http://www.dailycourtreview.com/Default.aspx?tabid=66&amp;articleType=ArticleView&amp;articleId=11349#Comments</comments> 
    <slash:comments>0</slash:comments> 
    <wfw:commentRss>http://www.dailycourtreview.com/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=66&amp;ModuleID=1140&amp;ArticleID=11349</wfw:commentRss> 
    <trackback:ping>http://www.dailycourtreview.com/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=11349&amp;PortalID=0&amp;TabID=66</trackback:ping> 
    <title>Oil prices stir concerns</title> 
    <link>http://www.dailycourtreview.com/Default.aspx?tabid=66&amp;articleType=ArticleView&amp;articleId=11349</link> 
    <description>&lt;P&gt;&lt;FONT size=4&gt;The Associated Press&lt;/FONT&gt;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&lt;FONT size=4&gt;Wall Street fell sharply Friday, extending its losses for the week as concerns about inflation and oil prices once again stirred interest rate concerns. The Dow Jones industrial average was at times down more than 150 points.&lt;BR&gt;A pullback coming a day after decent gains was characteristic of the somewhat erratic sessions Wall Street has seen in recent weeks as it has dealt with concerns ranging from interest rates to the health of hedge funds to prospects of unfavorable legislation from Washington.&lt;BR&gt;Friday’s session, unusually devoid of economic or earnings data, began with a focus on the initial public offering of a stake in the management arm of Blackstone Group LP. The most talked-about IPO since Google Inc. went public saw the buyout shop’s stock open well above the $31 a share at which it had been priced late Thursday. Enthusiasm over Blackstone wasn’t broad enough to prop up the markets.&lt;BR&gt;“Nobody wants to go into the weekend overextended. Once you see start to see momentum push it down it’s hard to stay in the way of it,” said Bill Schultz, chief investment officer at McQueen, Ball &amp; Associates, referring to the stock market.&lt;BR&gt;“There are clearly worries now that are creeping in that weren’t necessarily there before,” he said, citing concerns about inflation, rising oil prices and the woes of subprime lenders.&lt;BR&gt;Investors have been grappling with concerns about whether the economy will heat up and prompt the Federal Reserve to put off cutting, or perhaps even raising, interest rates. Also, concerns about the health of Bear Stearns hedge funds involved with subprime loans, those made to people with poor credit, have weighed on the markets. In addition, news from Washington has shown some lawmakers are impatient with some of the vast sums Wall Street investors have generated and could look to tamp down big payouts with higher taxes.&lt;BR&gt;Schultz contends the pullback in stocks isn’t unexpected given the sizable gains Wall Street has seen. Heading into trading Friday, the Dow was up 8.7 percent for the year, while the S&amp;P 500 had advanced 7.3 percent and the Nasdaq had risen 8.4 percent.&lt;BR&gt;“There’s a point where you need to see a pause before people get excited again. Do you commit at this point or do you wait for a pullback? There’s a sense that maybe we may be a little bit overextended here.”&lt;BR&gt;Friday’s session brought volatility for some stocks as the Standard &amp; Poor’s 500 index and the Russell indexes implemented changes, adding and subtracting some names. The changes can stir some unusual trading activity as investments that track the index try to square their holdings with the latest look of an index. The S&amp;P 500 is dropping PMC Sierra Inc. and ADC Telecommunication Inc., sending the shares lower as investors try to exit positions.&lt;BR&gt;Neil Massa, senior trader at MFC Global Investment Management, contends stocks were showing volatility Friday in part because of the rebalancing of the Russell indexes. Even the moves among some smallcap companies can affect larger stocks, he said, as investors jockey for positions.&lt;BR&gt;“I think it spills over and I think this is a little healthy pullback from the highs we’ve been seeing,” he said.&lt;BR&gt;The session comes ahead of a busy week in which the Federal Reserve meets and in which investors will receive several readings on the housing sector and the final report on economic growth in the first quarter, with release of the gross domestic product.&lt;/FONT&gt;&lt;/P&gt;</description> 
    <dc:creator>admin</dc:creator> 
    <pubDate>Mon, 25 Jun 2007 05:00:00 GMT</pubDate> 
    <guid isPermaLink="false">f1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:11349</guid> 
    
</item>
<item>
    <comments>http://www.dailycourtreview.com/Default.aspx?tabid=66&amp;articleType=ArticleView&amp;articleId=11348#Comments</comments> 
    <slash:comments>0</slash:comments> 
    <wfw:commentRss>http://www.dailycourtreview.com/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=66&amp;ModuleID=1140&amp;ArticleID=11348</wfw:commentRss> 
    <trackback:ping>http://www.dailycourtreview.com/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=11348&amp;PortalID=0&amp;TabID=66</trackback:ping> 
    <title>Supreme Court of Texas</title> 
    <link>http://www.dailycourtreview.com/Default.aspx?tabid=66&amp;articleType=ArticleView&amp;articleId=11348</link> 
    <description>&lt;P&gt;&lt;FONT size=4&gt;Orders Pronounced June 22, 2007&lt;BR&gt;ORDERS ON CAUSES&lt;BR&gt;060375&#160; LOWRY SCHAUB, M.D. AND&lt;BR&gt;KEVIN CRAWFORD, M.D. v. JANIE SANCHEZ AND KENNETH ADAMS, SPOUSE; from Lubbock County; 7th district (070400057CV,&#160;___&#160;SW3d&#160;___,&#160;020206)&lt;/FONT&gt;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&lt;FONT size=4&gt;THE FOLLOWING PETITIONS FOR REVIEW ARE GRANTED:&lt;BR&gt;TEXAS MUTUAL INSURANCE CO. v. ROBERT S. HOWELL, D.C. AND FIRST RIO VALLEY MEDICAL, P.A.; from Cameron County; 13th district (130500026CV,&#160;___&#160;SW3d&#160;___,&#160;082505) as&lt;BR&gt;reinstated motion for rehearing granted&lt;BR&gt;denial of petition for review on May 4, 2007&lt;BR&gt;withdrawn joint motion for judgment pursuant to settlement agreement granted in part as follows:&lt;BR&gt;050806 Pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate&lt;BR&gt;Procedure 56.3, without hearing oral argument or considering the merits, the Court vacates the judgment of the court of appeals and the temporary injunction order of the trial court, and remands the case to the trial court for rendition of judgment pursuant to the parties’ settlement agreement. The parties’ request that the court of appeals opinion be vacated is overruled.&lt;BR&gt;051042 JCW ELECTRONICS, INC. v.&lt;BR&gt;PEARL IRIZ GARZA, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF THE ESTATE OF ROLANDO DOMINGO MONTEZ, DECEASED, AND BELINDA LEIGH CAMACHO, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS NEXT FRIEND OF ROLANDO KADRIC MONTEZ, A MINOR CHILD; from Cameron County; 13th district (130200577CV,&#160;17&lt;BR&gt;SW3d&#160;618,&#160;101305)&lt;BR&gt;[Note: The date and time for oral argument are yet to be determined.]&lt;BR&gt;MAGIC VALLEY ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE v. CITY OF EDCOUCH, TEXAS; from Hidalgo County; 13th district (130500202CV&lt;BR&gt;,&#160;___&#160;SW3d&#160;___,&#160;032306)&lt;BR&gt;[Note: The date and time for oral argument are yet to be determined.]&lt;BR&gt;THE CITY OF EL PASO, ET AL. v. LILLI M. HEINRICH; from El Paso County; 8th district (080500203CV,&#160;198&#160;SW3d&#160;400&lt;BR&gt;072006) 3 petitions [Note: The date and&lt;BR&gt;time for oral argument are yet to be determined.]&lt;BR&gt;061028 JOHN LELAND, D.D.S. v.&lt;BR&gt;GEORGE C. BRANDAL AND RUTH L. BRANDAL; from Bandera County; 4th district (040500855CV,&#160;___&#160;SW3d&#160;___,&#160;091306)&lt;BR&gt;[Note: The date and time for oral argument are yet to be determined.&lt;/FONT&gt;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&lt;FONT size=4&gt;THE FOLLOWING PETITIONS FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS ARE SET FOR ORAL ARGUMENT:&lt;BR&gt;RE BP PRODUCTS NORTH AMERICA, INC.; from Galveston County; 1st district (010600943CV,&#160;___&#160;SW3d&#160;___,&#160;020907)&lt;BR&gt;]Note: The date and time for oral argument are yet to be determined.&lt;BR&gt;(Justice Gaultney sitting by assignment pursuant to Tex. Gov’t Code &#167; 22.005)&lt;BR&gt;070195&#160; IN RE GENERAL ELECTRIC&lt;BR&gt;COMPANY, ET AL.; from Harris County; 1st district (010601105CV,&#160;___&#160;SW3d&#160;___,&lt;BR&gt;030207) [Note: The date and time for oral&lt;BR&gt;argument are yet to be determined.]&lt;BR&gt;(Justice&#160;O’Neill not sitting)&lt;/FONT&gt;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&lt;FONT size=4&gt;THE FOLLOWING PETITIONS FOR REVIEW ARE DENIED:&lt;BR&gt;050810 CITY OF GRAND PRAIRIE v.&lt;BR&gt;IRWIN SEATING COMPANY, MIDWEST MECHANICAL CONTRACTORS, INC., SEYFORTH ROOFING COMPANY, INC., LEWIS &amp; LAMBERT, L.L.P., AND LINBECK/CON-REAL/RUSSELL JOINT VENTURE; from Dallas County; 5th district (050400560CV,&#160;170&#160;SW3d&#160;216,&#160;081605)&lt;BR&gt;060389 CITY OF JACKSBORO, TEXAS &lt;BR&gt;PERRY TEAGUE; from Jack County; 2nd district (020600032CV,&#160;190&#160;SW3d&#160;813,&lt;BR&gt;033006)&lt;BR&gt;060649&#160; SEARIVER MARITIME, INC. v.&lt;BR&gt;ELLA PIKE; from Harris County; 13th district (130500033CV,&#160;___&#160;SW3d&#160;___,&lt;BR&gt;060806) (Justice&#160;Hecht not sitting)&lt;BR&gt;060751&#160; DRAGON PRODUCTS, LTD. v. THOMAS REGIONAL DIRECTORY CO., INC., A DIVISION OF THOMAS PUBLISHING COMPANY, LLC; from Jefferson County; 9th district (090500176CV,&#160;196&#160;SW3d&#160;424,&lt;BR&gt;061506)&lt;BR&gt;060896 METROPOLITAN TRANSIT&lt;BR&gt;AUTHORITY v. EDWARD JACKSON; from Harris County; 1st district (010401157CV,&#160;212&#160;SW3d&#160;797,&#160;082406)&lt;BR&gt;070191&#160; BUI PHU XUAN v. FORT&lt;BR&gt;WORTH STAR TELEGRAM; from Tarrant County; 2nd district (020600206CV,&#160;___&lt;BR&gt;SW3d&#160;___,&#160;022207)&lt;BR&gt;070300 RICHARDSON-EAGLE, INC. v. WILLIAM M. MERCER INCORPORATED AND WILLIAM M. MERCER OF TEXAS, INC.; from Harris County; 1st district (010401000CV,&#160;213&#160;SW3d&lt;BR&gt;469,&#160;120706)&lt;BR&gt;070304DON R. SANDERS, ET AL v. THE CITY OF GRAPEVINE; from Tarrant County; 2nd district (020600208CV,&lt;BR&gt;___&#160;SW3d&#160;___,&#160;020107&lt;BR&gt;070305&#160;JERRY O. DUEITT v. TERRY RUSSELL DUEITT TRUSTEE OF THE CHRISTY LYNN CARRIGAN TRUST; &lt;BR&gt;rom Montgomery County; 9th district (090500423CV,&#160;___&#160;SW3d&#160;___,&lt;BR&gt;020107)&lt;BR&gt;070306&#160; JERRY O. DUEITT v. TERRY&lt;BR&gt;RUSSELL DUEITT A/K/A RUSTY DUEITT; from Montgomery County; 9th district (090500422CV,&#160;___&#160;SW3d&lt;BR&gt;___,&#160;020107)&lt;BR&gt;070307&#160;JERRY O. DUEITT v. TERRY&lt;BR&gt;RUSSELL DUEITT TRUSTEE OF THE JAMES WESLEY DUEITT TRUST; from Montgomery County; 9th district (090500431CV,&#160;___&#160;SW3d&#160;___,&lt;BR&gt;020107)&lt;BR&gt;070308&#160;JERRY O. DUEITT v. TERRY&lt;BR&gt;RUSSELL DUEITT TRUSTEE OF THE JOHN RUSSELL DUEITT TRUST; from Montgomery County; 9th district (090500424CV,&#160;___&#160;SW3d&#160;___,&lt;BR&gt;020107)&lt;BR&gt;070309&#160;JERRY O. DUEITT v. TERRY&lt;BR&gt;RUSSELL DUEITT TRUSTEE OF THE JENNIFER ANN DUEITT TRUST; from Montgomery County; 9th district (090500432CV,&#160;___&#160;SW3d&#160;___,&lt;BR&gt;020107)&lt;BR&gt;070316 JANICE MALONEY AND&lt;BR&gt;GEORGE LEGRAND v. ZANE MALTSBERGER; from Bexar County; 4th district (040500579CV,&#160;___&#160;SW3d&#160;___,&#160;122006)&lt;BR&gt;070330ANDRE JOEL HOWARD v. HA&lt;BR&gt;RIS COUNTY HOSPITAL DISTRICT AND TWCC; from Travis County; 3rd district (030600488CV,&#160;___&#160;SW3d&lt;BR&gt;___,&#160;090706)&lt;BR&gt;motion for involuntary dismissal denied&lt;BR&gt;070331&#160; SID WEINBERGER v. LARRY G.&lt;BR&gt;LONGER; from Galveston County; 14th district (140501285CV,&#160;___&#160;SW3d&#160;___,&lt;BR&gt;030807)&lt;BR&gt;07-0376 RICHARD JOHN FLORANCE, JUNIOR v. BRENDA TAYLOR; from Collin County; 5th district (050600992CV,&#160;___&lt;BR&gt;SW3d&#160;___,&#160;041007)&lt;BR&gt;070418 IN THE INTEREST OF J.R. AND&lt;BR&gt;B.R.; from Harris County; 14th district (140501216CV,&#160;___&#160;SW3d&#160;___,&#160;041007)&lt;BR&gt;070430&#160;IN THE INTEREST OF A.D.G.,&lt;BR&gt;M.D.G., C.G., J.D.G., AND K.C.G., MINOR CHILDREN; from Ellis County; 10th district (100700047CV,&#160;___&#160;SW3d&#160;___,&lt;BR&gt;032807)&lt;/FONT&gt;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&lt;FONT size=4&gt;THE FOLLOWING PETITION FOR REVIEW IS STRUCK PURSUANT TO TEXAS RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 9.4(i):&lt;BR&gt;070483&#160; UCILLE R. KELLEY v. HUMBLE&lt;BR&gt;INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT, DR. MARY WIDMIER AND ALICIA BOSTON MACE; from Harris County; 1st district (010500761CV,&#160;___&#160;SW3d&#160;___,&lt;BR&gt;032907)&lt;BR&gt;The Court strikes the petition for review with the following notations: “The petition violates Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure 53.6 and is struck. Petitioner is ordered to redraw; the petition is due to be filed no later than 5:00 p.m., July 2, 2007.”&lt;/FONT&gt;&lt;/P&gt;</description> 
    <dc:creator>admin</dc:creator> 
    <pubDate>Mon, 25 Jun 2007 05:00:00 GMT</pubDate> 
    <guid isPermaLink="false">f1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:11348</guid> 
    
</item>
<item>
    <comments>http://www.dailycourtreview.com/Default.aspx?tabid=66&amp;articleType=ArticleView&amp;articleId=11347#Comments</comments> 
    <slash:comments>0</slash:comments> 
    <wfw:commentRss>http://www.dailycourtreview.com/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=66&amp;ModuleID=1140&amp;ArticleID=11347</wfw:commentRss> 
    <trackback:ping>http://www.dailycourtreview.com/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=11347&amp;PortalID=0&amp;TabID=66</trackback:ping> 
    <title>Picking up the pace</title> 
    <link>http://www.dailycourtreview.com/Default.aspx?tabid=66&amp;articleType=ArticleView&amp;articleId=11347</link> 
    <description>&lt;P&gt;&lt;FONT size=4&gt;The Associated Press&lt;/FONT&gt;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&lt;FONT size=4&gt;U.S. economic activity should pick up for the rest of this year and into 2008 as the drag from a decline in the housing market dissipates, the International Monetary Fund said Friday.&lt;BR&gt;The IMF warned that growth is uncomfortably close to the 2 percent “stall speed” associated with past recessions even if other accompanying factors - rising unemployment and high interest rates - are not evident.&lt;BR&gt;“We, like the U.S. authorities, expect a favorable outcome for U.S growth,” said John Lipsky, the IMF’s leading deputy director, presenting the annual snapshot of the U.S. economy provided for under the rules of the 185-nation lending institution.&lt;BR&gt;“We expect to see a gradual reacceleration towards a sustained pace of around 3 percent by 2008,” he said.&lt;BR&gt;Despite a subpar first quarter, the U.S economy should grow 2 percent this year, the IMF said, and 2.75 percent in 2008. The 2007 forecast is slightly below the 2.2 percent estimate the IMF issued in its World Economic Outlook two months ago.&lt;BR&gt;The IMF said that fortunately for the global economy, the recent cooling of U.S. activity from the robust pace of recent years has coincided with a pick up in growth in Europe and Asia.&lt;BR&gt;“We share the U.S. authorities’ view that the most likely scenario is a soft landing as growth recovers and inflation falls, although both are subject to risks,” the IMF said.&lt;BR&gt;Lipsky said among the risks are rising oil and commodity prices.&lt;BR&gt;The IMF said challenges facing the U.S. economy include raising domestic savings and lowering the trade deficit while resisting protectionism and tackling the longer-term fiscal difficulties posed by rising spending for the government pension plan and health care for the elderly.&lt;BR&gt;“The central fiscal challenge is the projected unsustainable rise of entitlement spending over time,” Lipsky said. “This is going to overwhelm in quantitative terms any other fiscal challenge.”&lt;BR&gt;The IMF applauded the Federal Reserve’s decision one year ago to stop raising interest rates. The current 5.25 percent interest rate “appears consistent with a soft landing,” the IMF said.&lt;/FONT&gt;&lt;/P&gt;</description> 
    <dc:creator>admin</dc:creator> 
    <pubDate>Mon, 25 Jun 2007 05:00:00 GMT</pubDate> 
    <guid isPermaLink="false">f1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:11347</guid> 
    
</item>
<item>
    <comments>http://www.dailycourtreview.com/Default.aspx?tabid=66&amp;articleType=ArticleView&amp;articleId=10048#Comments</comments> 
    <slash:comments>0</slash:comments> 
    <wfw:commentRss>http://www.dailycourtreview.com/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=66&amp;ModuleID=1140&amp;ArticleID=10048</wfw:commentRss> 
    <trackback:ping>http://www.dailycourtreview.com/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=10048&amp;PortalID=0&amp;TabID=66</trackback:ping> 
    <title>Oil prices stir concerns</title> 
    <link>http://www.dailycourtreview.com/Default.aspx?tabid=66&amp;articleType=ArticleView&amp;articleId=10048</link> 
    <description>&lt;P&gt;&lt;FONT size=4&gt;The Associated Press&lt;/FONT&gt;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&lt;FONT size=4&gt;Wall Street fell sharply Friday, extending its losses for the week as concerns about inflation and oil prices once again stirred interest rate concerns. The Dow Jones industrial average was at times down more than 150 points.&lt;BR&gt;A pullback coming a day after decent gains was characteristic of the somewhat erratic sessions Wall Street has seen in recent weeks as it has dealt with concerns ranging from interest rates to the health of hedge funds to prospects of unfavorable legislation from Washington.&lt;BR&gt;Friday’s session, unusually devoid of economic or earnings data, began with a focus on the initial public offering of a stake in the management arm of Blackstone Group LP. The most talked-about IPO since Google Inc. went public saw the buyout shop’s stock open well above the $31 a share at which it had been priced late Thursday. Enthusiasm over Blackstone wasn’t broad enough to prop up the markets.&lt;BR&gt;“Nobody wants to go into the weekend overextended. Once you see start to see momentum push it down it’s hard to stay in the way of it,” said Bill Schultz, chief investment officer at McQueen, Ball &amp; Associates, referring to the stock market.&lt;BR&gt;“There are clearly worries now that are creeping in that weren’t necessarily there before,” he said, citing concerns about inflation, rising oil prices and the woes of subprime lenders.&lt;BR&gt;Investors have been grappling with concerns about whether the economy will heat up and prompt the Federal Reserve to put off cutting, or perhaps even raising, interest rates. Also, concerns about the health of Bear Stearns hedge funds involved with subprime loans, those made to people with poor credit, have weighed on the markets. In addition, news from Washington has shown some lawmakers are impatient with some of the vast sums Wall Street investors have generated and could look to tamp down big payouts with higher taxes.&lt;BR&gt;Schultz contends the pullback in stocks isn’t unexpected given the sizable gains Wall Street has seen. Heading into trading Friday, the Dow was up 8.7 percent for the year, while the S&amp;P 500 had advanced 7.3 percent and the Nasdaq had risen 8.4 percent.&lt;BR&gt;“There’s a point where you need to see a pause before people get excited again. Do you commit at this point or do you wait for a pullback? There’s a sense that maybe we may be a little bit overextended here.”&lt;BR&gt;Friday’s session brought volatility for some stocks as the Standard &amp; Poor’s 500 index and the Russell indexes implemented changes, adding and subtracting some names. The changes can stir some unusual trading activity as investments that track the index try to square their holdings with the latest look of an index. The S&amp;P 500 is dropping PMC Sierra Inc. and ADC Telecommunication Inc., sending the shares lower as investors try to exit positions.&lt;BR&gt;Neil Massa, senior trader at MFC Global Investment Management, contends stocks were showing volatility Friday in part because of the rebalancing of the Russell indexes. Even the moves among some smallcap companies can affect larger stocks, he said, as investors jockey for positions.&lt;BR&gt;“I think it spills over and I think this is a little healthy pullback from the highs we’ve been seeing,” he said.&lt;BR&gt;The session comes ahead of a busy week in which the Federal Reserve meets and in which investors will receive several readings on the housing sector and the final report on economic growth in the first quarter, with release of the gross domestic product.&lt;/FONT&gt;&lt;/P&gt;</description> 
    <dc:creator>admin</dc:creator> 
    <pubDate>Mon, 25 Jun 2007 05:00:00 GMT</pubDate> 
    <guid isPermaLink="false">f1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:10048</guid> 
    
</item>
<item>
    <comments>http://www.dailycourtreview.com/Default.aspx?tabid=66&amp;articleType=ArticleView&amp;articleId=10047#Comments</comments> 
    <slash:comments>0</slash:comments> 
    <wfw:commentRss>http://www.dailycourtreview.com/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=66&amp;ModuleID=1140&amp;ArticleID=10047</wfw:commentRss> 
    <trackback:ping>http://www.dailycourtreview.com/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=10047&amp;PortalID=0&amp;TabID=66</trackback:ping> 
    <title>Supreme Court of Texas</title> 
    <link>http://www.dailycourtreview.com/Default.aspx?tabid=66&amp;articleType=ArticleView&amp;articleId=10047</link> 
    <description>&lt;P&gt;&lt;FONT size=4&gt;Orders Pronounced June 22, 2007&lt;BR&gt;ORDERS ON CAUSES&lt;BR&gt;060375&#160; LOWRY SCHAUB, M.D. AND&lt;BR&gt;KEVIN CRAWFORD, M.D. v. JANIE SANCHEZ AND KENNETH ADAMS, SPOUSE; from Lubbock County; 7th district (070400057CV,&#160;___&#160;SW3d&#160;___,&#160;020206)&lt;/FONT&gt;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&lt;FONT size=4&gt;THE FOLLOWING PETITIONS FOR REVIEW ARE GRANTED:&lt;BR&gt;TEXAS MUTUAL INSURANCE CO. v. ROBERT S. HOWELL, D.C. AND FIRST RIO VALLEY MEDICAL, P.A.; from Cameron County; 13th district (130500026CV,&#160;___&#160;SW3d&#160;___,&#160;082505) as&lt;BR&gt;reinstated motion for rehearing granted&lt;BR&gt;denial of petition for review on May 4, 2007&lt;BR&gt;withdrawn joint motion for judgment pursuant to settlement agreement granted in part as follows:&lt;BR&gt;050806 Pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate&lt;BR&gt;Procedure 56.3, without hearing oral argument or considering the merits, the Court vacates the judgment of the court of appeals and the temporary injunction order of the trial court, and remands the case to the trial court for rendition of judgment pursuant to the parties’ settlement agreement. The parties’ request that the court of appeals opinion be vacated is overruled.&lt;BR&gt;051042 JCW ELECTRONICS, INC. v.&lt;BR&gt;PEARL IRIZ GARZA, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF THE ESTATE OF ROLANDO DOMINGO MONTEZ, DECEASED, AND BELINDA LEIGH CAMACHO, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS NEXT FRIEND OF ROLANDO KADRIC MONTEZ, A MINOR CHILD; from Cameron County; 13th district (130200577CV,&#160;17&lt;BR&gt;SW3d&#160;618,&#160;101305)&lt;BR&gt;[Note: The date and time for oral argument are yet to be determined.]&lt;BR&gt;MAGIC VALLEY ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE v. CITY OF EDCOUCH, TEXAS; from Hidalgo County; 13th district (130500202CV&lt;BR&gt;,&#160;___&#160;SW3d&#160;___,&#160;032306)&lt;BR&gt;[Note: The date and time for oral argument are yet to be determined.]&lt;BR&gt;THE CITY OF EL PASO, ET AL. v. LILLI M. HEINRICH; from El Paso County; 8th district (080500203CV,&#160;198&#160;SW3d&#160;400&lt;BR&gt;072006) 3 petitions [Note: The date and&lt;BR&gt;time for oral argument are yet to be determined.]&lt;BR&gt;061028 JOHN LELAND, D.D.S. v.&lt;BR&gt;GEORGE C. BRANDAL AND RUTH L. BRANDAL; from Bandera County; 4th district (040500855CV,&#160;___&#160;SW3d&#160;___,&#160;091306)&lt;BR&gt;[Note: The date and time for oral argument are yet to be determined.&lt;/FONT&gt;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&lt;FONT size=4&gt;THE FOLLOWING PETITIONS FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS ARE SET FOR ORAL ARGUMENT:&lt;BR&gt;RE BP PRODUCTS NORTH AMERICA, INC.; from Galveston County; 1st district (010600943CV,&#160;___&#160;SW3d&#160;___,&#160;020907)&lt;BR&gt;]Note: The date and time for oral argument are yet to be determined.&lt;BR&gt;(Justice Gaultney sitting by assignment pursuant to Tex. Gov’t Code &#167; 22.005)&lt;BR&gt;070195&#160; IN RE GENERAL ELECTRIC&lt;BR&gt;COMPANY, ET AL.; from Harris County; 1st district (010601105CV,&#160;___&#160;SW3d&#160;___,&lt;BR&gt;030207) [Note: The date and time for oral&lt;BR&gt;argument are yet to be determined.]&lt;BR&gt;(Justice&#160;O’Neill not sitting)&lt;/FONT&gt;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&lt;FONT size=4&gt;THE FOLLOWING PETITIONS FOR REVIEW ARE DENIED:&lt;BR&gt;050810 CITY OF GRAND PRAIRIE v.&lt;BR&gt;IRWIN SEATING COMPANY, MIDWEST MECHANICAL CONTRACTORS, INC., SEYFORTH ROOFING COMPANY, INC., LEWIS &amp; LAMBERT, L.L.P., AND LINBECK/CON-REAL/RUSSELL JOINT VENTURE; from Dallas County; 5th district (050400560CV,&#160;170&#160;SW3d&#160;216,&#160;081605)&lt;BR&gt;060389 CITY OF JACKSBORO, TEXAS &lt;BR&gt;PERRY TEAGUE; from Jack County; 2nd district (020600032CV,&#160;190&#160;SW3d&#160;813,&lt;BR&gt;033006)&lt;BR&gt;060649&#160; SEARIVER MARITIME, INC. v.&lt;BR&gt;ELLA PIKE; from Harris County; 13th district (130500033CV,&#160;___&#160;SW3d&#160;___,&lt;BR&gt;060806) (Justice&#160;Hecht not sitting)&lt;BR&gt;060751&#160; DRAGON PRODUCTS, LTD. v. THOMAS REGIONAL DIRECTORY CO., INC., A DIVISION OF THOMAS PUBLISHING COMPANY, LLC; from Jefferson County; 9th district (090500176CV,&#160;196&#160;SW3d&#160;424,&lt;BR&gt;061506)&lt;BR&gt;060896 METROPOLITAN TRANSIT&lt;BR&gt;AUTHORITY v. EDWARD JACKSON; from Harris County; 1st district (010401157CV,&#160;212&#160;SW3d&#160;797,&#160;082406)&lt;BR&gt;070191&#160; BUI PHU XUAN v. FORT&lt;BR&gt;WORTH STAR TELEGRAM; from Tarrant County; 2nd district (020600206CV,&#160;___&lt;BR&gt;SW3d&#160;___,&#160;022207)&lt;BR&gt;070300 RICHARDSON-EAGLE, INC. v. WILLIAM M. MERCER INCORPORATED AND WILLIAM M. MERCER OF TEXAS, INC.; from Harris County; 1st district (010401000CV,&#160;213&#160;SW3d&lt;BR&gt;469,&#160;120706)&lt;BR&gt;070304DON R. SANDERS, ET AL v. THE CITY OF GRAPEVINE; from Tarrant County; 2nd district (020600208CV,&lt;BR&gt;___&#160;SW3d&#160;___,&#160;020107&lt;BR&gt;070305&#160;JERRY O. DUEITT v. TERRY RUSSELL DUEITT TRUSTEE OF THE CHRISTY LYNN CARRIGAN TRUST; &lt;BR&gt;rom Montgomery County; 9th district (090500423CV,&#160;___&#160;SW3d&#160;___,&lt;BR&gt;020107)&lt;BR&gt;070306&#160; JERRY O. DUEITT v. TERRY&lt;BR&gt;RUSSELL DUEITT A/K/A RUSTY DUEITT; from Montgomery County; 9th district (090500422CV,&#160;___&#160;SW3d&lt;BR&gt;___,&#160;020107)&lt;BR&gt;070307&#160;JERRY O. DUEITT v. TERRY&lt;BR&gt;RUSSELL DUEITT TRUSTEE OF THE JAMES WESLEY DUEITT TRUST; from Montgomery County; 9th district (090500431CV,&#160;___&#160;SW3d&#160;___,&lt;BR&gt;020107)&lt;BR&gt;070308&#160;JERRY O. DUEITT v. TERRY&lt;BR&gt;RUSSELL DUEITT TRUSTEE OF THE JOHN RUSSELL DUEITT TRUST; from Montgomery County; 9th district (090500424CV,&#160;___&#160;SW3d&#160;___,&lt;BR&gt;020107)&lt;BR&gt;070309&#160;JERRY O. DUEITT v. TERRY&lt;BR&gt;RUSSELL DUEITT TRUSTEE OF THE JENNIFER ANN DUEITT TRUST; from Montgomery County; 9th district (090500432CV,&#160;___&#160;SW3d&#160;___,&lt;BR&gt;020107)&lt;BR&gt;070316 JANICE MALONEY AND&lt;BR&gt;GEORGE LEGRAND v. ZANE MALTSBERGER; from Bexar County; 4th district (040500579CV,&#160;___&#160;SW3d&#160;___,&#160;122006)&lt;BR&gt;070330ANDRE JOEL HOWARD v. HA&lt;BR&gt;RIS COUNTY HOSPITAL DISTRICT AND TWCC; from Travis County; 3rd district (030600488CV,&#160;___&#160;SW3d&lt;BR&gt;___,&#160;090706)&lt;BR&gt;motion for involuntary dismissal denied&lt;BR&gt;070331&#160; SID WEINBERGER v. LARRY G.&lt;BR&gt;LONGER; from Galveston County; 14th district (140501285CV,&#160;___&#160;SW3d&#160;___,&lt;BR&gt;030807)&lt;BR&gt;07-0376 RICHARD JOHN FLORANCE, JUNIOR v. BRENDA TAYLOR; from Collin County; 5th district (050600992CV,&#160;___&lt;BR&gt;SW3d&#160;___,&#160;041007)&lt;BR&gt;070418 IN THE INTEREST OF J.R. AND&lt;BR&gt;B.R.; from Harris County; 14th district (140501216CV,&#160;___&#160;SW3d&#160;___,&#160;041007)&lt;BR&gt;070430&#160;IN THE INTEREST OF A.D.G.,&lt;BR&gt;M.D.G., C.G., J.D.G., AND K.C.G., MINOR CHILDREN; from Ellis County; 10th district (100700047CV,&#160;___&#160;SW3d&#160;___,&lt;BR&gt;032807)&lt;/FONT&gt;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&lt;FONT size=4&gt;THE FOLLOWING PETITION FOR REVIEW IS STRUCK PURSUANT TO TEXAS RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 9.4(i):&lt;BR&gt;070483&#160; UCILLE R. KELLEY v. HUMBLE&lt;BR&gt;INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT, DR. MARY WIDMIER AND ALICIA BOSTON MACE; from Harris County; 1st district (010500761CV,&#160;___&#160;SW3d&#160;___,&lt;BR&gt;032907)&lt;BR&gt;The Court strikes the petition for review with the following notations: “The petition violates Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure 53.6 and is struck. Petitioner is ordered to redraw; the petition is due to be filed no later than 5:00 p.m., July 2, 2007.”&lt;/FONT&gt;&lt;/P&gt;</description> 
    <dc:creator>admin</dc:creator> 
    <pubDate>Mon, 25 Jun 2007 05:00:00 GMT</pubDate> 
    <guid isPermaLink="false">f1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:10047</guid> 
    
</item>
<item>
    <comments>http://www.dailycourtreview.com/Default.aspx?tabid=66&amp;articleType=ArticleView&amp;articleId=10046#Comments</comments> 
    <slash:comments>0</slash:comments> 
    <wfw:commentRss>http://www.dailycourtreview.com/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=66&amp;ModuleID=1140&amp;ArticleID=10046</wfw:commentRss> 
    <trackback:ping>http://www.dailycourtreview.com/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=10046&amp;PortalID=0&amp;TabID=66</trackback:ping> 
    <title>Picking up the pace</title> 
    <link>http://www.dailycourtreview.com/Default.aspx?tabid=66&amp;articleType=ArticleView&amp;articleId=10046</link> 
    <description>&lt;P&gt;&lt;FONT size=4&gt;The Associated Press&lt;/FONT&gt;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&lt;FONT size=4&gt;U.S. economic activity should pick up for the rest of this year and into 2008 as the drag from a decline in the housing market dissipates, the International Monetary Fund said Friday.&lt;BR&gt;The IMF warned that growth is uncomfortably close to the 2 percent “stall speed” associated with past recessions even if other accompanying factors - rising unemployment and high interest rates - are not evident.&lt;BR&gt;“We, like the U.S. authorities, expect a favorable outcome for U.S growth,” said John Lipsky, the IMF’s leading deputy director, presenting the annual snapshot of the U.S. economy provided for under the rules of the 185-nation lending institution.&lt;BR&gt;“We expect to see a gradual reacceleration towards a sustained pace of around 3 percent by 2008,” he said.&lt;BR&gt;Despite a subpar first quarter, the U.S economy should grow 2 percent this year, the IMF said, and 2.75 percent in 2008. The 2007 forecast is slightly below the 2.2 percent estimate the IMF issued in its World Economic Outlook two months ago.&lt;BR&gt;The IMF said that fortunately for the global economy, the recent cooling of U.S. activity from the robust pace of recent years has coincided with a pick up in growth in Europe and Asia.&lt;BR&gt;“We share the U.S. authorities’ view that the most likely scenario is a soft landing as growth recovers and inflation falls, although both are subject to risks,” the IMF said.&lt;BR&gt;Lipsky said among the risks are rising oil and commodity prices.&lt;BR&gt;The IMF said challenges facing the U.S. economy include raising domestic savings and lowering the trade deficit while resisting protectionism and tackling the longer-term fiscal difficulties posed by rising spending for the government pension plan and health care for the elderly.&lt;BR&gt;“The central fiscal challenge is the projected unsustainable rise of entitlement spending over time,” Lipsky said. “This is going to overwhelm in quantitative terms any other fiscal challenge.”&lt;BR&gt;The IMF applauded the Federal Reserve’s decision one year ago to stop raising interest rates. The current 5.25 percent interest rate “appears consistent with a soft landing,” the IMF said.&lt;/FONT&gt;&lt;/P&gt;</description> 
    <dc:creator>admin</dc:creator> 
    <pubDate>Mon, 25 Jun 2007 05:00:00 GMT</pubDate> 
    <guid isPermaLink="false">f1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:10046</guid> 
    
</item>
<item>
    <comments>http://www.dailycourtreview.com/Default.aspx?tabid=66&amp;articleType=ArticleView&amp;articleId=11346#Comments</comments> 
    <slash:comments>0</slash:comments> 
    <wfw:commentRss>http://www.dailycourtreview.com/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=66&amp;ModuleID=1140&amp;ArticleID=11346</wfw:commentRss> 
    <trackback:ping>http://www.dailycourtreview.com/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=11346&amp;PortalID=0&amp;TabID=66</trackback:ping> 
    <title>High court sets tougher standards for fraud cases</title> 
    <link>http://www.dailycourtreview.com/Default.aspx?tabid=66&amp;articleType=ArticleView&amp;articleId=11346</link> 
    <description>&lt;P&gt;&lt;FONT size=4&gt;The Associated Press&lt;/FONT&gt;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&lt;FONT size=4&gt;Investors lost another round at the Supreme Court Thursday when the justices imposed a strict standard for shareholder lawsuits seeking to recover losses from companies accused of fraudulent business practices.&lt;BR&gt;The 8-1 opinion written by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg will make it harder for groups of investors to file lawsuits alleging they lost money because company officials violated federal securities laws.&lt;BR&gt;A lawsuit will survive only if the facts alleged in it are “cogent and compelling” in pointing to an intent to deceive investors, Ginsburg wrote. Those factual allegations must be at least as compelling as “any opposing inference” suggesting innocence, she added.&lt;BR&gt;The standard will be applied at the very start of a securities fraud case, meaning many lawsuits may be tossed out at the earlier stages of a court battle.&lt;BR&gt;The ruling came in a shareholders suit against high-tech company Tellabs Inc.&lt;BR&gt;The firm misled investors by engaging in a scheme to inflate Tellabs’ stock price from December 2000 to June 2001, according to the lawsuit. &lt;BR&gt;It said the company’s CEO provided false assurances of robust demand for the company’s products.&lt;BR&gt;The high court is being asked to clarify what legal hurdles investors must clear in a case with far-reaching repercussions for class-action lawsuits against public companies. Such suits have helped shareholders recover billions of dollars following the wave of corporate scandals.&lt;BR&gt;The Supreme Court decision comes as the corporate world pushes regulators to roll back some safeguards put in place after the accounting scandals that brought down Enron Corp. and WorldCom Inc.&lt;BR&gt;The business community says the Tellabs case is the kind of meritless claim that Congress intended to prohibit when it reformed securities law 12 years ago.&lt;BR&gt;Under the 1995 reforms, a securities fraud complaint must allege facts giving rise to a “strong inference” that defendants acted with an intent to deceive investors.&lt;BR&gt;The 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals had ruled against Tellabs, saying the complaint should survive if a reasonable person could infer from the allegations that defendants’ conduct was intentionally deceptive.&lt;BR&gt;“That one-sided approach, we hold, was erroneous,” Ginsburg said in court.&lt;BR&gt;The justices sent the case back so that the lower courts can assess whether the lawsuit should survive.&lt;BR&gt;In dissent, Justice John Paul Stevens suggested the court had adopted too high a standard. &lt;BR&gt;“There are times when an inference can easily be deemed strong without any need to weigh competing inferences,” wrote Stevens.&lt;BR&gt;“Justice Ginsburg recognizes that it’s important to give teeth to what Congress has passed; she acknowledges that securities fraud actions can be employed abusively,” said attorney Jay B. Kasner, who successfully argued another securities fraud case last year before the Supreme Court. In that case, the Supreme Court blocked state class-action lawsuits by stockholders who contend they were tricked into holding onto declining shares.&lt;BR&gt;A plaintiffs attorney, Barbara J. Hart, said “investors can breathe a sigh of relief” that the court did not adopt a higher standard proposed by Justices Antonin Scalia and Samuel Alito in a concurring opinion.&lt;BR&gt;Under the standard the court did adopt, “investors in the markets should be pleased that they will have redress,” said Hart, who represents institutional investors in major securities fraud cases.&lt;BR&gt;“We already articulate” the standard the court adopted, said Hart.&lt;BR&gt;On Monday, the court dealt another setback to investors when it sided with Wall Street investment banks that allegedly colluded to drive up the price of 900 technology stocks in the late 1990s. Shareholders subsequently lost billions when the dot-com bubble burst.&lt;BR&gt;Next fall, the court will consider a case that could make it impossible for Enron shareholders to recover money from Wall Street institutions that allegedly assisted the energy company in disguising its financial problems.&lt;BR&gt;On the Net:&lt;BR&gt;Supreme Court: &lt;/FONT&gt;&lt;A href=&quot;http://www.supremecourtus.gov/&quot;&gt;&lt;FONT size=4&gt;http://www.supremecourtus.gov/&lt;/FONT&gt;&lt;/A&gt;&lt;/P&gt;</description> 
    <dc:creator>admin</dc:creator> 
    <pubDate>Fri, 22 Jun 2007 05:00:00 GMT</pubDate> 
    <guid isPermaLink="false">f1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:11346</guid> 
    
</item>
<item>
    <comments>http://www.dailycourtreview.com/Default.aspx?tabid=66&amp;articleType=ArticleView&amp;articleId=11345#Comments</comments> 
    <slash:comments>0</slash:comments> 
    <wfw:commentRss>http://www.dailycourtreview.com/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=66&amp;ModuleID=1140&amp;ArticleID=11345</wfw:commentRss> 
    <trackback:ping>http://www.dailycourtreview.com/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=11345&amp;PortalID=0&amp;TabID=66</trackback:ping> 
    <title>U.S economy to grow  in upcoming months</title> 
    <link>http://www.dailycourtreview.com/Default.aspx?tabid=66&amp;articleType=ArticleView&amp;articleId=11345</link> 
    <description>&lt;P&gt;&lt;FONT size=4&gt;The Associated Press&lt;/FONT&gt;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&lt;FONT size=4&gt;The U.S. economy should expand modestly in coming months, a gauge of future business activity showed Thursday, indicating consumers and businesses may be shrugging off the weak housing market.&lt;BR&gt;The Conference Board said its index of leading economic indicators rose 0.3 percent, higher than the 0.2 percent analysts were expecting. The increase reversed a revised 0.3 percent drop in April, down from the original 0.5 percent decline that economists blamed on soaring gas prices and a drop in building permits.&lt;BR&gt;The reading is designed to forecast economic activity over the next three to six months.&lt;BR&gt;The reading tracks 10 economic indicators. The advancing contributors, starting with the largest, were weekly unemployment insurance claims, stock prices, building permits, consumer expectations and vendor performance.&lt;BR&gt;The negative contributors, beginning with the largest, were real money supply, average weekly manufacturing hours and interest rate spread.&lt;BR&gt;With the latest reading, the cumulative change in the index over the past six months has gone up 0.3 percent.&lt;BR&gt;The report shows that the impact of the housing slump has been fairly contained so far, said Patrick Newport, an economist with Global Insight.&lt;BR&gt;“It just hasn’t spilled over to the rest of the economy,” he said.&lt;BR&gt;Analysts don’t expect the housing industry to rebound until early next year.&lt;BR&gt;The Conference Board report follows a round of dreary economic data this week.&lt;BR&gt;On Tuesday, the Commerce Department said construction of new homes fell in May as the nation’s homebuilders were battered by the crisis in subprime lending and rising mortgage rates. Industry sentiment about the housing market also fell in June to the lowest point in more than 16 years.&lt;/FONT&gt;&lt;/P&gt;</description> 
    <dc:creator>admin</dc:creator> 
    <pubDate>Fri, 22 Jun 2007 05:00:00 GMT</pubDate> 
    <guid isPermaLink="false">f1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:11345</guid> 
    
</item>
<item>
    <comments>http://www.dailycourtreview.com/Default.aspx?tabid=66&amp;articleType=ArticleView&amp;articleId=11344#Comments</comments> 
    <slash:comments>0</slash:comments> 
    <wfw:commentRss>http://www.dailycourtreview.com/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=66&amp;ModuleID=1140&amp;ArticleID=11344</wfw:commentRss> 
    <trackback:ping>http://www.dailycourtreview.com/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=11344&amp;PortalID=0&amp;TabID=66</trackback:ping> 
    <title>Houston cuts off funding to day labor site</title> 
    <link>http://www.dailycourtreview.com/Default.aspx?tabid=66&amp;articleType=ArticleView&amp;articleId=11344</link> 
    <description>&lt;P&gt;&lt;FONT size=4&gt;The Associated Press&lt;/FONT&gt;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&lt;FONT size=4&gt;The only city-funded day labor center, which critics said encourages illegal immigration, could close at the end of the month after officials decided not to renew its $100,000 contract.&lt;BR&gt;The East End Worker Development Center had been funded through the federal Community Development Block Grant program. The center has been popular with illegal workers who gather there to seek employment.&lt;BR&gt;Last spring, Shelley Sekula-Gibbs, then a city councilwoman seeking the Republican nomination to succeed U.S. Rep. Tom DeLay, criticized the funding, saying taxpayer money should not used for something that promotes illegal immigration.&lt;BR&gt;The City Council decided to cancel the funding, said Frank Michel, a spokesman for Mayor Bill White.&lt;BR&gt;The center has been operated since 2005 by Neighborhood Centers Inc., a Houston nonprofit human services agency. The agency director said he would continue operating the center if funding is found.&lt;BR&gt;Community activists called on city officials and religious and business leaders to keep the hall open, but a Houston group that promotes tighter immigration controls welcomed the decision. City Councilwoman Carol Alvarado, whose district includes the East End, said she would ask the administration to restore funding.&lt;BR&gt;Day labor centers have become flash points in the immigration debate, as communities around the country debate whether to allow facilities where day laborers can gather.&lt;/FONT&gt;&lt;/P&gt;</description> 
    <dc:creator>admin</dc:creator> 
    <pubDate>Fri, 22 Jun 2007 05:00:00 GMT</pubDate> 
    <guid isPermaLink="false">f1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:11344</guid> 
    
</item>
<item>
    <comments>http://www.dailycourtreview.com/Default.aspx?tabid=66&amp;articleType=ArticleView&amp;articleId=10045#Comments</comments> 
    <slash:comments>0</slash:comments> 
    <wfw:commentRss>http://www.dailycourtreview.com/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=66&amp;ModuleID=1140&amp;ArticleID=10045</wfw:commentRss> 
    <trackback:ping>http://www.dailycourtreview.com/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=10045&amp;PortalID=0&amp;TabID=66</trackback:ping> 
    <title>High court sets tougher standards for fraud cases</title> 
    <link>http://www.dailycourtreview.com/Default.aspx?tabid=66&amp;articleType=ArticleView&amp;articleId=10045</link> 
    <description>&lt;P&gt;&lt;FONT size=4&gt;The Associated Press&lt;/FONT&gt;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&lt;FONT size=4&gt;Investors lost another round at the Supreme Court Thursday when the justices imposed a strict standard for shareholder lawsuits seeking to recover losses from companies accused of fraudulent business practices.&lt;BR&gt;The 8-1 opinion written by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg will make it harder for groups of investors to file lawsuits alleging they lost money because company officials violated federal securities laws.&lt;BR&gt;A lawsuit will survive only if the facts alleged in it are “cogent and compelling” in pointing to an intent to deceive investors, Ginsburg wrote. Those factual allegations must be at least as compelling as “any opposing inference” suggesting innocence, she added.&lt;BR&gt;The standard will be applied at the very start of a securities fraud case, meaning many lawsuits may be tossed out at the earlier stages of a court battle.&lt;BR&gt;The ruling came in a shareholders suit against high-tech company Tellabs Inc.&lt;BR&gt;The firm misled investors by engaging in a scheme to inflate Tellabs’ stock price from December 2000 to June 2001, according to the lawsuit. &lt;BR&gt;It said the company’s CEO provided false assurances of robust demand for the company’s products.&lt;BR&gt;The high court is being asked to clarify what legal hurdles investors must clear in a case with far-reaching repercussions for class-action lawsuits against public companies. Such suits have helped shareholders recover billions of dollars following the wave of corporate scandals.&lt;BR&gt;The Supreme Court decision comes as the corporate world pushes regulators to roll back some safeguards put in place after the accounting scandals that brought down Enron Corp. and WorldCom Inc.&lt;BR&gt;The business community says the Tellabs case is the kind of meritless claim that Congress intended to prohibit when it reformed securities law 12 years ago.&lt;BR&gt;Under the 1995 reforms, a securities fraud complaint must allege facts giving rise to a “strong inference” that defendants acted with an intent to deceive investors.&lt;BR&gt;The 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals had ruled against Tellabs, saying the complaint should survive if a reasonable person could infer from the allegations that defendants’ conduct was intentionally deceptive.&lt;BR&gt;“That one-sided approach, we hold, was erroneous,” Ginsburg said in court.&lt;BR&gt;The justices sent the case back so that the lower courts can assess whether the lawsuit should survive.&lt;BR&gt;In dissent, Justice John Paul Stevens suggested the court had adopted too high a standard. &lt;BR&gt;“There are times when an inference can easily be deemed strong without any need to weigh competing inferences,” wrote Stevens.&lt;BR&gt;“Justice Ginsburg recognizes that it’s important to give teeth to what Congress has passed; she acknowledges that securities fraud actions can be employed abusively,” said attorney Jay B. Kasner, who successfully argued another securities fraud case last year before the Supreme Court. In that case, the Supreme Court blocked state class-action lawsuits by stockholders who contend they were tricked into holding onto declining shares.&lt;BR&gt;A plaintiffs attorney, Barbara J. Hart, said “investors can breathe a sigh of relief” that the court did not adopt a higher standard proposed by Justices Antonin Scalia and Samuel Alito in a concurring opinion.&lt;BR&gt;Under the standard the court did adopt, “investors in the markets should be pleased that they will have redress,” said Hart, who represents institutional investors in major securities fraud cases.&lt;BR&gt;“We already articulate” the standard the court adopted, said Hart.&lt;BR&gt;On Monday, the court dealt another setback to investors when it sided with Wall Street investment banks that allegedly colluded to drive up the price of 900 technology stocks in the late 1990s. Shareholders subsequently lost billions when the dot-com bubble burst.&lt;BR&gt;Next fall, the court will consider a case that could make it impossible for Enron shareholders to recover money from Wall Street institutions that allegedly assisted the energy company in disguising its financial problems.&lt;BR&gt;On the Net:&lt;BR&gt;Supreme Court: &lt;/FONT&gt;&lt;A href=&quot;http://www.supremecourtus.gov/&quot;&gt;&lt;FONT size=4&gt;http://www.supremecourtus.gov/&lt;/FONT&gt;&lt;/A&gt;&lt;/P&gt;</description> 
    <dc:creator>admin</dc:creator> 
    <pubDate>Fri, 22 Jun 2007 05:00:00 GMT</pubDate> 
    <guid isPermaLink="false">f1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:10045</guid> 
    
</item>
<item>
    <comments>http://www.dailycourtreview.com/Default.aspx?tabid=66&amp;articleType=ArticleView&amp;articleId=10044#Comments</comments> 
    <slash:comments>0</slash:comments> 
    <wfw:commentRss>http://www.dailycourtreview.com/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=66&amp;ModuleID=1140&amp;ArticleID=10044</wfw:commentRss> 
    <trackback:ping>http://www.dailycourtreview.com/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=10044&amp;PortalID=0&amp;TabID=66</trackback:ping> 
    <title>U.S economy to grow  in upcoming months</title> 
    <link>http://www.dailycourtreview.com/Default.aspx?tabid=66&amp;articleType=ArticleView&amp;articleId=10044</link> 
    <description>&lt;P&gt;&lt;FONT size=4&gt;The Associated Press&lt;/FONT&gt;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&lt;FONT size=4&gt;The U.S. economy should expand modestly in coming months, a gauge of future business activity showed Thursday, indicating consumers and businesses may be shrugging off the weak housing market.&lt;BR&gt;The Conference Board said its index of leading economic indicators rose 0.3 percent, higher than the 0.2 percent analysts were expecting. The increase reversed a revised 0.3 percent drop in April, down from the original 0.5 percent decline that economists blamed on soaring gas prices and a drop in building permits.&lt;BR&gt;The reading is designed to forecast economic activity over the next three to six months.&lt;BR&gt;The reading tracks 10 economic indicators. The advancing contributors, starting with the largest, were weekly unemployment insurance claims, stock prices, building permits, consumer expectations and vendor performance.&lt;BR&gt;The negative contributors, beginning with the largest, were real money supply, average weekly manufacturing hours and interest rate spread.&lt;BR&gt;With the latest reading, the cumulative change in the index over the past six months has gone up 0.3 percent.&lt;BR&gt;The report shows that the impact of the housing slump has been fairly contained so far, said Patrick Newport, an economist with Global Insight.&lt;BR&gt;“It just hasn’t spilled over to the rest of the economy,” he said.&lt;BR&gt;Analysts don’t expect the housing industry to rebound until early next year.&lt;BR&gt;The Conference Board report follows a round of dreary economic data this week.&lt;BR&gt;On Tuesday, the Commerce Department said construction of new homes fell in May as the nation’s homebuilders were battered by the crisis in subprime lending and rising mortgage rates. Industry sentiment about the housing market also fell in June to the lowest point in more than 16 years.&lt;/FONT&gt;&lt;/P&gt;</description> 
    <dc:creator>admin</dc:creator> 
    <pubDate>Fri, 22 Jun 2007 05:00:00 GMT</pubDate> 
    <guid isPermaLink="false">f1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:10044</guid> 
    
</item>
<item>
    <comments>http://www.dailycourtreview.com/Default.aspx?tabid=66&amp;articleType=ArticleView&amp;articleId=10043#Comments</comments> 
    <slash:comments>0</slash:comments> 
    <wfw:commentRss>http://www.dailycourtreview.com/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=66&amp;ModuleID=1140&amp;ArticleID=10043</wfw:commentRss> 
    <trackback:ping>http://www.dailycourtreview.com/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=10043&amp;PortalID=0&amp;TabID=66</trackback:ping> 
    <title>Houston cuts off funding to day labor site</title> 
    <link>http://www.dailycourtreview.com/Default.aspx?tabid=66&amp;articleType=ArticleView&amp;articleId=10043</link> 
    <description>&lt;P&gt;&lt;FONT size=4&gt;The Associated Press&lt;/FONT&gt;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&lt;FONT size=4&gt;The only city-funded day labor center, which critics said encourages illegal immigration, could close at the end of the month after officials decided not to renew its $100,000 contract.&lt;BR&gt;The East End Worker Development Center had been funded through the federal Community Development Block Grant program. The center has been popular with illegal workers who gather there to seek employment.&lt;BR&gt;Last spring, Shelley Sekula-Gibbs, then a city councilwoman seeking the Republican nomination to succeed U.S. Rep. Tom DeLay, criticized the funding, saying taxpayer money should not used for something that promotes illegal immigration.&lt;BR&gt;The City Council decided to cancel the funding, said Frank Michel, a spokesman for Mayor Bill White.&lt;BR&gt;The center has been operated since 2005 by Neighborhood Centers Inc., a Houston nonprofit human services agency. The agency director said he would continue operating the center if funding is found.&lt;BR&gt;Community activists called on city officials and religious and business leaders to keep the hall open, but a Houston group that promotes tighter immigration controls welcomed the decision. City Councilwoman Carol Alvarado, whose district includes the East End, said she would ask the administration to restore funding.&lt;BR&gt;Day labor centers have become flash points in the immigration debate, as communities around the country debate whether to allow facilities where day laborers can gather.&lt;/FONT&gt;&lt;/P&gt;</description> 
    <dc:creator>admin</dc:creator> 
    <pubDate>Fri, 22 Jun 2007 05:00:00 GMT</pubDate> 
    <guid isPermaLink="false">f1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:10043</guid> 
    
</item>
<item>
    <comments>http://www.dailycourtreview.com/Default.aspx?tabid=66&amp;articleType=ArticleView&amp;articleId=11553#Comments</comments> 
    <slash:comments>0</slash:comments> 
    <wfw:commentRss>http://www.dailycourtreview.com/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=66&amp;ModuleID=1140&amp;ArticleID=11553</wfw:commentRss> 
    <trackback:ping>http://www.dailycourtreview.com/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=11553&amp;PortalID=0&amp;TabID=66</trackback:ping> 
    <title>Houston home prices set record </title> 
    <link>http://www.dailycourtreview.com/Default.aspx?tabid=66&amp;articleType=ArticleView&amp;articleId=11553</link> 
    <description>&lt;P&gt;&lt;FONT size=4&gt;Houston Association of Realtors&lt;/FONT&gt;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&lt;FONT size=4&gt;Single-family home sales in May declined compared to the same month last year, reversing April’s modest gain, but year-to-date sales are still in positive territory. Prices last month continued to show strength though, as both the median and average sales price extended recent growth trends. &lt;BR&gt;The much-reported problems in the subprime lending market, as well resultant differences in price classes of properties have been cited as possible contributors to the lower sales levels.&#160; &lt;BR&gt;Sales of those homes in the $80,000 to $140,000 price range, which made up 31.9 percent of sales in May, were down 8.3 percent versus the same period last year.&#160; &lt;BR&gt;Conversely, sales of homes sold for more than $500,000 showed a 14.6 percent increase in activity.&lt;BR&gt;Total property sales for the month registered 8,532, which was a 1.2 percent decrease versus May 2006.&#160; &lt;BR&gt;Properties sold during the month reached a total of more than $1.7 billion, a 4.6 percent increase compared to last year’s nearly $1.7 billion in May sales.&#160; &lt;BR&gt;Additionally, the median home price for a single-family home shed a monthly record for May of $155,000, and the average single-family home price came in at $214,540, increases from last year of 2.0 and 5.5 percent, respectively.&#160; &lt;BR&gt;The average sales price figure is an all-time high for the greater Houston area.&lt;BR&gt;“Pricing has continued to show strength in the greater Houston real estate market, and the fact that we set a new all-time high for the average sales price shows the health of the market,” said Rob Cook,&#160;HAR Chairman and&#160;broker/owner of Robert D. Cook Properties. &lt;BR&gt;“It is largely a function of Houston having a larger number of affordably priced homes that makes that particular price range have more impact on the overall market numbers.&#160; &lt;BR&gt;Unfortunately, it is owners in that range that have been most impacted by the mortgage industry’s woes of late.”&lt;BR&gt;Houston Real Estate &lt;BR&gt;Milestones&#160; &lt;BR&gt;1. Highest ever average single-family home sales price. &lt;BR&gt;2. Highest ever number of single-family homes listed for sale. &lt;BR&gt;3. Second highest number of homes ever sold in May. &lt;BR&gt;4. Highest median sales price for the month of May and the third highest in Houston history. &lt;BR&gt;5. Highest median townhouse/ condo sales price for the month of May and third highest ever. &lt;BR&gt;6. Highest average townhouse/ condo sales price for the month of May and fourth highest ever.&lt;BR&gt;May Monthly Market &lt;BR&gt;Comparison&lt;BR&gt;All listing categories combined, Houston’s overall housing market in May saw mixed results, with increases in dollar volume, average sales prices, median sales price and months inventory on a year-over-year basis.&lt;BR&gt;The number of available homes (active listings) at the end of May was 50,376 properties, which was an increase of 16.2 percent versus last May and the 11th month with a year-over-year increase, after 10 consecutive previous declines.&#160; &lt;BR&gt;The figure was an increase of nearly 1,300 properties from last month, which is not entirely unusual for the spring/early summer as more homes are listed for sale, but it was also an increase of more than 6,200 since the beginning of 2007.&#160; It is still a figure to watch to see if inventory of available homes rises faster than sales, which could place downward pressure on prices as well.&lt;BR&gt;Month-end pending sales – those listings expected to close within the next 30 days – reached 5,722, which was down 2.9 percent from last year and signals an initial expectation for possible weakness in June sales.&#160; The month’s inventory of single-family homes for May came in at 6.0 months, which is the third year-over-year increase and does signal that new listings are slightly outpacing sales, but still signals more of a seller’s market.&lt;/FONT&gt;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&lt;FONT size=4&gt;Single-family Homes Update&lt;BR&gt;The overall median price of single-family homes of $155,000 was a record for the month of May and an increase of 2.0 percent compared to the prior year.&#160;&lt;BR&gt;The average sales price for single-family homes was $214,540 during May, which was up 5.5 percent versus the same period last year and was an all-time high for Houston.&#160;&lt;BR&gt;The median is a typical market price where half of the homes sold for more and half sold for less than that figure.&lt;BR&gt;Houston’s current median price of $155,000, while another monthly record for the Houston market, is 29.7 percent less than the national median price, which reached $220,500 in April, according to statistics released by the National Association of Realtors.&lt;BR&gt;These data continue to show the tremendous value and lower cost of living afforded to Houstonians.&lt;BR&gt;Additionally, total sales for single-family homes in Houston in May came in at 7,052, which reversed the modest gain seen in April sales figures, reflecting a 2.2 percent decrease versus the same month last year.&#160; &lt;BR&gt;This level was still more than 1,000 homes than sold in April, and the year-to-date sales are up 0.9 percent versus the same period last year.&lt;BR&gt;HAR also reports existing home statistics for the single-family home segment of the real estate market.&#160;&lt;BR&gt;For the month of May 2007, existing single-family home sales totaled 5,994, which was a 1.1 percent decrease from May 2006. The median sales price for existing homes in the Houston area was $149,000, an increase of 2.8 percent compared to the same period last year.&#160; &lt;BR&gt;The average sales price for the month of $202,181 was an increase of 6.1 percent from last year’s level.&lt;/FONT&gt;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&lt;FONT size=4&gt;Townhouse/Condo Update&lt;BR&gt;The overall median price in the townhouse/condo segment in Houston was up 11.0 percent for May, with the median sales price for the month being $134,000.&#160;&lt;BR&gt;The average sales price for which a townhouse or condo sold in the greater Houston area was $163,015 in May 2007, which was a 7.7 percent increase from the same month last year.&lt;BR&gt;Additionally, the number of townhouses and condos that sold in May followed single-family home sales and decreased compared to the previous year’s sales.&#160;&lt;BR&gt;In the greater Houston area, 758 units were sold last month, versus 772 properties in May 2006, or a 1.8 percent decrease in year-over-year sales.&#160; &lt;/FONT&gt;&lt;/P&gt;</description> 
    <dc:creator>admin</dc:creator> 
    <pubDate>Thu, 21 Jun 2007 05:00:00 GMT</pubDate> 
    <guid isPermaLink="false">f1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:11553</guid> 
    
</item>
<item>
    <comments>http://www.dailycourtreview.com/Default.aspx?tabid=66&amp;articleType=ArticleView&amp;articleId=11552#Comments</comments> 
    <slash:comments>0</slash:comments> 
    <wfw:commentRss>http://www.dailycourtreview.com/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=66&amp;ModuleID=1140&amp;ArticleID=11552</wfw:commentRss> 
    <trackback:ping>http://www.dailycourtreview.com/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=11552&amp;PortalID=0&amp;TabID=66</trackback:ping> 
    <title>TX education chief to step down July 1st</title> 
    <link>http://www.dailycourtreview.com/Default.aspx?tabid=66&amp;articleType=ArticleView&amp;articleId=11552</link> 
    <description>&lt;P&gt;&lt;FONT size=4&gt;&#160;The Associated Press&lt;/FONT&gt;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&lt;FONT size=4&gt;Texas Education Commissioner Shirley Neeley, the first woman to hold the job, announced Wednesday she is resigning from the post after Gov. Rick Perry signaled he didn’t plan to reappoint her.&lt;BR&gt;As commissioner, Neeley has overseen the Texas Education Agency for more than three years. She previously was a teacher, principal and school district superintendent. Neeley said she will step down effective July 1.&lt;BR&gt;“I leave this office sooner than I originally had hoped but with my head held high because of the enormous strides we have made in public education,” Neeley said in a statement. She added that she recently revisited her life’s priorities when she had a recurrence of melanoma after 22 years of being cancer-free.&lt;BR&gt;Neeley decided to resign after learning over the weekend that Perry had decided not to reappoint her, TEA spokeswoman DeEtta Culbertson said.&lt;BR&gt;Perry’s spokesman, Robert Black, wouldn’t say why the governor was dissatisfied with Neeley. But he said Perry evaluates all his appointees when their terms expire and that he particularly scrutinizes major nominations.&lt;BR&gt;“The governor decided he wanted to bring new energy and a new direction to the agency going forward, and that’s where we’ll be headed,” Black said. “The governor appreciates Ms. Neeley’s service to the state.”&lt;BR&gt;Neeley, appointed in January 2004, has been at the helm as a standardized test cheating fiasco unfolded. She announced a new security plan last week designed to prevent cheating on the Texas Assessment of Knowledge and Skills, a statewide test administered at various grade levels.&lt;BR&gt;Neeley also was called to the witness stand to testify during a civil lawsuit that resulted in Texas’ education funding system being declared unconstitutional.&lt;BR&gt;After several failed attempts to fix it, lawmakers passed a new education finance plan in a special session last year.&lt;BR&gt;Neeley’s term expired in February. It’s common for commissioners to continue working until they are reappointed or replaced.&lt;BR&gt;Perry hasn’t yet decided who will replace Neeley, Black said.&lt;BR&gt;The president of Texas AFT, representing 57,000 teachers and other school personnel, issued a statement Wednesday on what she called the “forced departure” of Neeley and praising Neeley for making state policies more workable in the classroom.&lt;BR&gt;“As a veteran educator herself, Commissioner Neeley has tried to keep in touch with educators in the field who actually have to implement the policy edicts and inadequate budgets handed down from the governor and legislative leadership,” said Linda Bridges, whose organization is affiliated with the American Federation of Teachers.&lt;BR&gt;Bridges said she hopes Neeley’s successor fills a similar role.&lt;/FONT&gt;&lt;/P&gt;</description> 
    <dc:creator>admin</dc:creator> 
    <pubDate>Thu, 21 Jun 2007 05:00:00 GMT</pubDate> 
    <guid isPermaLink="false">f1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:11552</guid> 
    
</item>
<item>
    <comments>http://www.dailycourtreview.com/Default.aspx?tabid=66&amp;articleType=ArticleView&amp;articleId=11466#Comments</comments> 
    <slash:comments>0</slash:comments> 
    <wfw:commentRss>http://www.dailycourtreview.com/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=66&amp;ModuleID=1140&amp;ArticleID=11466</wfw:commentRss> 
    <trackback:ping>http://www.dailycourtreview.com/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=11466&amp;PortalID=0&amp;TabID=66</trackback:ping> 
    <title>Oil industry releases new safety standards</title> 
    <link>http://www.dailycourtreview.com/Default.aspx?tabid=66&amp;articleType=ArticleView&amp;articleId=11466</link> 
    <description>&lt;P&gt;&lt;FONT style=&quot;BACKGROUND-COLOR: #fdfdfd&quot;&gt;&lt;FONT size=4&gt;The Associated Press&lt;/FONT&gt;&lt;/FONT&gt;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&lt;FONT style=&quot;BACKGROUND-COLOR: #fdfdfd&quot;&gt;&lt;FONT size=4&gt;&#160;&#160; An oil industry trade group said Wednesday it has developed standards to better protect workers from explosions like the 2005 Texas refinery explosion that killed 15 people and injured 170.&lt;BR&gt;The American Petroleum Institute’s new standards, to be published Thursday, are designed to meet the demands of the U.S. Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board that made an “urgent” recommendation in October 2005, requiring refineries to limit how close workers’ portable trailers can be placed near potentially hazardous operations.&lt;BR&gt;The voluntary standards for refiners, such as San Antonio-based Valero Energy Corp. and Exxon Mobil Corp. of Irving, Texas, establish three “blast zones” in which portable buildings could be placed, depending on their size and construction material. For example, small trailers made of light wood would not be allowed within 330 feet of a potentially dangerous area.&lt;BR&gt;Red Cavaney, the association’s chief executive, said refiners would decide whether and when to implement the recommended standards, but said the industry takes them “very seriously.”&lt;BR&gt;Cavaney defended the speed with which the industry adopted the chemical safety board’s recommendations, saying they required thorough public review with input from experts in the field.&lt;BR&gt;The safety board, which investigated the March 23 accident two years ago at London-based BP PLC’s Texas City refinery, found that nine trailers were located as close as 121 feet from a unit that exploded. It was the worst U.S. industrial accident in more than 16 years.&lt;BR&gt;Workers in trailers as far as 480 feet away from the unit were injured, the safety board found, and trailers as far as 600 feet away were damaged.&lt;BR&gt;The Chemical Safety Board issued a report earlier this year that partly blamed lax oversight by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration for the accident.&lt;BR&gt;Federal regulators say they are stepping up scrutiny of oil refineries to identify problems that have caused a spate of fatal accidents in recent years. Since 1992, 36 refinery accidents involving hazardous chemicals have caused 52 deaths and 250 injuries, making the industry the most dangerous in the country, according to OSHA.&lt;BR&gt;Other fatal accidents have occurred at refineries in Bakersfield, Calif., and Gallup, N.M..&lt;BR&gt;In March, on the second anniversary of the explosion, House members called for OSHA reforms, arguing that it had not enforced safety rules.&lt;BR&gt;Lawmakers also criticized the industry’s trade group for failing to expel members who don’t follow safety standards.&lt;/FONT&gt;&lt;/FONT&gt;&lt;/P&gt;</description> 
    <dc:creator>admin</dc:creator> 
    <pubDate>Thu, 21 Jun 2007 05:00:00 GMT</pubDate> 
    <guid isPermaLink="false">f1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:11466</guid> 
    
</item>
<item>
    <comments>http://www.dailycourtreview.com/Default.aspx?tabid=66&amp;articleType=ArticleView&amp;articleId=10252#Comments</comments> 
    <slash:comments>0</slash:comments> 
    <wfw:commentRss>http://www.dailycourtreview.com/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=66&amp;ModuleID=1140&amp;ArticleID=10252</wfw:commentRss> 
    <trackback:ping>http://www.dailycourtreview.com/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=10252&amp;PortalID=0&amp;TabID=66</trackback:ping> 
    <title>Houston home prices set record </title> 
    <link>http://www.dailycourtreview.com/Default.aspx?tabid=66&amp;articleType=ArticleView&amp;articleId=10252</link> 
    <description>&lt;P&gt;&lt;FONT size=4&gt;Houston Association of Realtors&lt;/FONT&gt;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&lt;FONT size=4&gt;Single-family home sales in May declined compared to the same month last year, reversing April’s modest gain, but year-to-date sales are still in positive territory. Prices last month continued to show strength though, as both the median and average sales price extended recent growth trends. &lt;BR&gt;The much-reported problems in the subprime lending market, as well resultant differences in price classes of properties have been cited as possible contributors to the lower sales levels.&#160; &lt;BR&gt;Sales of those homes in the $80,000 to $140,000 price range, which made up 31.9 percent of sales in May, were down 8.3 percent versus the same period last year.&#160; &lt;BR&gt;Conversely, sales of homes sold for more than $500,000 showed a 14.6 percent increase in activity.&lt;BR&gt;Total property sales for the month registered 8,532, which was a 1.2 percent decrease versus May 2006.&#160; &lt;BR&gt;Properties sold during the month reached a total of more than $1.7 billion, a 4.6 percent increase compared to last year’s nearly $1.7 billion in May sales.&#160; &lt;BR&gt;Additionally, the median home price for a single-family home shed a monthly record for May of $155,000, and the average single-family home price came in at $214,540, increases from last year of 2.0 and 5.5 percent, respectively.&#160; &lt;BR&gt;The average sales price figure is an all-time high for the greater Houston area.&lt;BR&gt;“Pricing has continued to show strength in the greater Houston real estate market, and the fact that we set a new all-time high for the average sales price shows the health of the market,” said Rob Cook,&#160;HAR Chairman and&#160;broker/owner of Robert D. Cook Properties. &lt;BR&gt;“It is largely a function of Houston having a larger number of affordably priced homes that makes that particular price range have more impact on the overall market numbers.&#160; &lt;BR&gt;Unfortunately, it is owners in that range that have been most impacted by the mortgage industry’s woes of late.”&lt;BR&gt;Houston Real Estate &lt;BR&gt;Milestones&#160; &lt;BR&gt;1. Highest ever average single-family home sales price. &lt;BR&gt;2. Highest ever number of single-family homes listed for sale. &lt;BR&gt;3. Second highest number of homes ever sold in May. &lt;BR&gt;4. Highest median sales price for the month of May and the third highest in Houston history. &lt;BR&gt;5. Highest median townhouse/ condo sales price for the month of May and third highest ever. &lt;BR&gt;6. Highest average townhouse/ condo sales price for the month of May and fourth highest ever.&lt;BR&gt;May Monthly Market &lt;BR&gt;Comparison&lt;BR&gt;All listing categories combined, Houston’s overall housing market in May saw mixed results, with increases in dollar volume, average sales prices, median sales price and months inventory on a year-over-year basis.&lt;BR&gt;The number of available homes (active listings) at the end of May was 50,376 properties, which was an increase of 16.2 percent versus last May and the 11th month with a year-over-year increase, after 10 consecutive previous declines.&#160; &lt;BR&gt;The figure was an increase of nearly 1,300 properties from last month, which is not entirely unusual for the spring/early summer as more homes are listed for sale, but it was also an increase of more than 6,200 since the beginning of 2007.&#160; It is still a figure to watch to see if inventory of available homes rises faster than sales, which could place downward pressure on prices as well.&lt;BR&gt;Month-end pending sales – those listings expected to close within the next 30 days – reached 5,722, which was down 2.9 percent from last year and signals an initial expectation for possible weakness in June sales.&#160; The month’s inventory of single-family homes for May came in at 6.0 months, which is the third year-over-year increase and does signal that new listings are slightly outpacing sales, but still signals more of a seller’s market.&lt;/FONT&gt;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&lt;FONT size=4&gt;Single-family Homes Update&lt;BR&gt;The overall median price of single-family homes of $155,000 was a record for the month of May and an increase of 2.0 percent compared to the prior year.&#160;&lt;BR&gt;The average sales price for single-family homes was $214,540 during May, which was up 5.5 percent versus the same period last year and was an all-time high for Houston.&#160;&lt;BR&gt;The median is a typical market price where half of the homes sold for more and half sold for less than that figure.&lt;BR&gt;Houston’s current median price of $155,000, while another monthly record for the Houston market, is 29.7 percent less than the national median price, which reached $220,500 in April, according to statistics released by the National Association of Realtors.&lt;BR&gt;These data continue to show the tremendous value and lower cost of living afforded to Houstonians.&lt;BR&gt;Additionally, total sales for single-family homes in Houston in May came in at 7,052, which reversed the modest gain seen in April sales figures, reflecting a 2.2 percent decrease versus the same month last year.&#160; &lt;BR&gt;This level was still more than 1,000 homes than sold in April, and the year-to-date sales are up 0.9 percent versus the same period last year.&lt;BR&gt;HAR also reports existing home statistics for the single-family home segment of the real estate market.&#160;&lt;BR&gt;For the month of May 2007, existing single-family home sales totaled 5,994, which was a 1.1 percent decrease from May 2006. The median sales price for existing homes in the Houston area was $149,000, an increase of 2.8 percent compared to the same period last year.&#160; &lt;BR&gt;The average sales price for the month of $202,181 was an increase of 6.1 percent from last year’s level.&lt;/FONT&gt;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&lt;FONT size=4&gt;Townhouse/Condo Update&lt;BR&gt;The overall median price in the townhouse/condo segment in Houston was up 11.0 percent for May, with the median sales price for the month being $134,000.&#160;&lt;BR&gt;The average sales price for which a townhouse or condo sold in the greater Houston area was $163,015 in May 2007, which was a 7.7 percent increase from the same month last year.&lt;BR&gt;Additionally, the number of townhouses and condos that sold in May followed single-family home sales and decreased compared to the previous year’s sales.&#160;&lt;BR&gt;In the greater Houston area, 758 units were sold last month, versus 772 properties in May 2006, or a 1.8 percent decrease in year-over-year sales.&#160; &lt;/FONT&gt;&lt;/P&gt;</description> 
    <dc:creator>admin</dc:creator> 
    <pubDate>Thu, 21 Jun 2007 05:00:00 GMT</pubDate> 
    <guid isPermaLink="false">f1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:10252</guid> 
    
</item>
<item>
    <comments>http://www.dailycourtreview.com/Default.aspx?tabid=66&amp;articleType=ArticleView&amp;articleId=10251#Comments</comments> 
    <slash:comments>0</slash:comments> 
    <wfw:commentRss>http://www.dailycourtreview.com/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=66&amp;ModuleID=1140&amp;ArticleID=10251</wfw:commentRss> 
    <trackback:ping>http://www.dailycourtreview.com/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=10251&amp;PortalID=0&amp;TabID=66</trackback:ping> 
    <title>TX education chief to step down July 1st</title> 
    <link>http://www.dailycourtreview.com/Default.aspx?tabid=66&amp;articleType=ArticleView&amp;articleId=10251</link> 
    <description>&lt;P&gt;&lt;FONT size=4&gt;&#160;The Associated Press&lt;/FONT&gt;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&lt;FONT size=4&gt;Texas Education Commissioner Shirley Neeley, the first woman to hold the job, announced Wednesday she is resigning from the post after Gov. Rick Perry signaled he didn’t plan to reappoint her.&lt;BR&gt;As commissioner, Neeley has overseen the Texas Education Agency for more than three years. She previously was a teacher, principal and school district superintendent. Neeley said she will step down effective July 1.&lt;BR&gt;“I leave this office sooner than I originally had hoped but with my head held high because of the enormous strides we have made in public education,” Neeley said in a statement. She added that she recently revisited her life’s priorities when she had a recurrence of melanoma after 22 years of being cancer-free.&lt;BR&gt;Neeley decided to resign after learning over the weekend that Perry had decided not to reappoint her, TEA spokeswoman DeEtta Culbertson said.&lt;BR&gt;Perry’s spokesman, Robert Black, wouldn’t say why the governor was dissatisfied with Neeley. But he said Perry evaluates all his appointees when their terms expire and that he particularly scrutinizes major nominations.&lt;BR&gt;“The governor decided he wanted to bring new energy and a new direction to the agency going forward, and that’s where we’ll be headed,” Black said. “The governor appreciates Ms. Neeley’s service to the state.”&lt;BR&gt;Neeley, appointed in January 2004, has been at the helm as a standardized test cheating fiasco unfolded. She announced a new security plan last week designed to prevent cheating on the Texas Assessment of Knowledge and Skills, a statewide test administered at various grade levels.&lt;BR&gt;Neeley also was called to the witness stand to testify during a civil lawsuit that resulted in Texas’ education funding system being declared unconstitutional.&lt;BR&gt;After several failed attempts to fix it, lawmakers passed a new education finance plan in a special session last year.&lt;BR&gt;Neeley’s term expired in February. It’s common for commissioners to continue working until they are reappointed or replaced.&lt;BR&gt;Perry hasn’t yet decided who will replace Neeley, Black said.&lt;BR&gt;The president of Texas AFT, representing 57,000 teachers and other school personnel, issued a statement Wednesday on what she called the “forced departure” of Neeley and praising Neeley for making state policies more workable in the classroom.&lt;BR&gt;“As a veteran educator herself, Commissioner Neeley has tried to keep in touch with educators in the field who actually have to implement the policy edicts and inadequate budgets handed down from the governor and legislative leadership,” said Linda Bridges, whose organization is affiliated with the American Federation of Teachers.&lt;BR&gt;Bridges said she hopes Neeley’s successor fills a similar role.&lt;/FONT&gt;&lt;/P&gt;</description> 
    <dc:creator>admin</dc:creator> 
    <pubDate>Thu, 21 Jun 2007 05:00:00 GMT</pubDate> 
    <guid isPermaLink="false">f1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:10251</guid> 
    
</item>
<item>
    <comments>http://www.dailycourtreview.com/Default.aspx?tabid=66&amp;articleType=ArticleView&amp;articleId=10165#Comments</comments> 
    <slash:comments>0</slash:comments> 
    <wfw:commentRss>http://www.dailycourtreview.com/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=66&amp;ModuleID=1140&amp;ArticleID=10165</wfw:commentRss> 
    <trackback:ping>http://www.dailycourtreview.com/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=10165&amp;PortalID=0&amp;TabID=66</trackback:ping> 
    <title>Oil industry releases new safety standards</title> 
    <link>http://www.dailycourtreview.com/Default.aspx?tabid=66&amp;articleType=ArticleView&amp;articleId=10165</link> 
    <description>&lt;P&gt;&lt;FONT style=&quot;BACKGROUND-COLOR: #fdfdfd&quot;&gt;&lt;FONT size=4&gt;The Associated Press&lt;/FONT&gt;&lt;/FONT&gt;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&lt;FONT style=&quot;BACKGROUND-COLOR: #fdfdfd&quot;&gt;&lt;FONT size=4&gt;&#160;&#160; An oil industry trade group said Wednesday it has developed standards to better protect workers from explosions like the 2005 Texas refinery explosion that killed 15 people and injured 170.&lt;BR&gt;The American Petroleum Institute’s new standards, to be published Thursday, are designed to meet the demands of the U.S. Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board that made an “urgent” recommendation in October 2005, requiring refineries to limit how close workers’ portable trailers can be placed near potentially hazardous operations.&lt;BR&gt;The voluntary standards for refiners, such as San Antonio-based Valero Energy Corp. and Exxon Mobil Corp. of Irving, Texas, establish three “blast zones” in which portable buildings could be placed, depending on their size and construction material. For example, small trailers made of light wood would not be allowed within 330 feet of a potentially dangerous area.&lt;BR&gt;Red Cavaney, the association’s chief executive, said refiners would decide whether and when to implement the recommended standards, but said the industry takes them “very seriously.”&lt;BR&gt;Cavaney defended the speed with which the industry adopted the chemical safety board’s recommendations, saying they required thorough public review with input from experts in the field.&lt;BR&gt;The safety board, which investigated the March 23 accident two years ago at London-based BP PLC’s Texas City refinery, found that nine trailers were located as close as 121 feet from a unit that exploded. It was the worst U.S. industrial accident in more than 16 years.&lt;BR&gt;Workers in trailers as far as 480 feet away from the unit were injured, the safety board found, and trailers as far as 600 feet away were damaged.&lt;BR&gt;The Chemical Safety Board issued a report earlier this year that partly blamed lax oversight by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration for the accident.&lt;BR&gt;Federal regulators say they are stepping up scrutiny of oil refineries to identify problems that have caused a spate of fatal accidents in recent years. Since 1992, 36 refinery accidents involving hazardous chemicals have caused 52 deaths and 250 injuries, making the industry the most dangerous in the country, according to OSHA.&lt;BR&gt;Other fatal accidents have occurred at refineries in Bakersfield, Calif., and Gallup, N.M..&lt;BR&gt;In March, on the second anniversary of the explosion, House members called for OSHA reforms, arguing that it had not enforced safety rules.&lt;BR&gt;Lawmakers also criticized the industry’s trade group for failing to expel members who don’t follow safety standards.&lt;/FONT&gt;&lt;/FONT&gt;&lt;/P&gt;</description> 
    <dc:creator>admin</dc:creator> 
    <pubDate>Thu, 21 Jun 2007 05:00:00 GMT</pubDate> 
    <guid isPermaLink="false">f1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:10165</guid> 
    
</item>
<item>
    <comments>http://www.dailycourtreview.com/Default.aspx?tabid=66&amp;articleType=ArticleView&amp;articleId=11343#Comments</comments> 
    <slash:comments>0</slash:comments> 
    <wfw:commentRss>http://www.dailycourtreview.com/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=66&amp;ModuleID=1140&amp;ArticleID=11343</wfw:commentRss> 
    <trackback:ping>http://www.dailycourtreview.com/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=11343&amp;PortalID=0&amp;TabID=66</trackback:ping> 
    <title>Cast your votes</title> 
    <link>http://www.dailycourtreview.com/Default.aspx?tabid=66&amp;articleType=ArticleView&amp;articleId=11343</link> 
    <description>&lt;P&gt;&lt;FONT size=4&gt;The Associated Press&lt;/FONT&gt;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&lt;FONT size=4&gt;Texas lawmakers dashed both major political parties’ hopes of moving up the state’s 2008 presidential primaries, but Republicans hope to make an early splash in the presidential race anyway, with a Sept. 1 straw poll.&lt;BR&gt;But some marquee candidates are skipping the contest.&lt;BR&gt;Former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani, Arizona Sen. John McCain and former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney aren’t participating, their campaigns said. State GOP officials said they do expect several other candidates at the Fort Worth event when an estimated 10,000 Texas Republicans will cast their non-binding votes.&lt;BR&gt;“This will be the first major test below the Mason-Dixon line of the presidential candidates,” Texas GOP spokesman Hans Klingler said. “We will build the best opportunity possible for Texas Republican leaders to see these presidential candidates on Texas soil and feel it would not be wise for these campaigns to pass up the opportunity.”&lt;BR&gt;Candidates who don’t show up will still have their names on the straw poll ballot.&lt;BR&gt;Some South Carolina counties have held straw polls this year.&lt;BR&gt;Unlike Iowa’s Republican straw poll in August, open to any voter who pays for a ticket, the Texas event is only for party activists. Those casting ballots must have been a delegate or alternate to a recent GOP state or national convention.&lt;BR&gt;That means the winner will be selected by voters who, even in President Bush’s decidedly red state, are the most conservative of Republicans, particularly on social issues.&lt;BR&gt;Those casting ballots must pay a $25 registration fee, or $50 the day of the event, and travel to Fort Worth.&lt;BR&gt;It’s hard to make much out of the contest if the big candidates don’t show up, but it could generate needed headlines for a second- or third-tier candidate if he wins the balloting, said Bruce Buchanan, a University of Texas professor who specializes in the presidency.&lt;BR&gt;Romney isn’t participating because his campaign “is focused on building the infrastructure needed to play in the Ames straw poll in August, and use that organization to win Iowa’s first in the nation caucus,” said spokeswoman Gail Gitcho.&lt;BR&gt;Giuliani is skipping the Iowa and Texas straw polls and working instead on winning primaries, said spokesman Elliott Bundy, who said a concentrated effort to win a straw poll can cost more than $2 million.&lt;BR&gt;The campaigns bypassing the Texas event insist they aren’t taking the state for granted.&lt;BR&gt;“Texas is a very important state to the senator. We’ve been there. We were there last week,” said McCain spokeswoman Brooke Buchanan.&lt;BR&gt;McCain traveled to San Antonio last week for a fundraiser. Giuliani was visiting Houston and Dallas on Tuesday. Democrats John Edwards and Hillary Rodham Clinton also have been in the state this month to collect campaign cash.&lt;BR&gt;Grassroots GOP leaders want to hear from the candidates and don’t want them to treat Texas like a “giant ATM” used for withdrawing money, Klingler said. “They have to come talk to our people,” he said.&lt;BR&gt;The Texas Republican and Democratic parties both wanted the Legislature to move the March 4 primary to Feb. 5. The Texas House approved the bill, but it died in the Senate.&lt;BR&gt;Other large states have moved up their primaries, giving them an earlier say in the presidential sweepstakes.&lt;BR&gt;At stake in the Texas Republican primary are 140 delegates, second only to California.&lt;BR&gt;While some Texans worry the primary will be anti-climatic, as it was in 2004, when presidential nominations were essentially decided before Texas’ contest, it’s too early to write off the primary because of its March date, said Bruce Buchanan, the government professor.&lt;BR&gt;“You’ve got wild cards going on in both parties right now,” Buchanan said, pointing to the possible upcoming Republican candidacy of actor and conservative former Sen. Fred Thompson.&lt;BR&gt;If earlier primaries result in close delegate tallies for the leading candidates, Texas’ primary could serve as a tiebreaker, he said.&lt;/FONT&gt;&lt;/P&gt;</description> 
    <dc:creator>Michael</dc:creator> 
    <pubDate>Wed, 20 Jun 2007 05:00:00 GMT</pubDate> 
    <guid isPermaLink="false">f1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:11343</guid> 
    
</item>
<item>
    <comments>http://www.dailycourtreview.com/Default.aspx?tabid=66&amp;articleType=ArticleView&amp;articleId=11342#Comments</comments> 
    <slash:comments>0</slash:comments> 
    <wfw:commentRss>http://www.dailycourtreview.com/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=66&amp;ModuleID=1140&amp;ArticleID=11342</wfw:commentRss> 
    <trackback:ping>http://www.dailycourtreview.com/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=11342&amp;PortalID=0&amp;TabID=66</trackback:ping> 
    <title>Most parents in support of </title> 
    <link>http://www.dailycourtreview.com/Default.aspx?tabid=66&amp;articleType=ArticleView&amp;articleId=11342</link> 
    <description>&lt;P&gt;&lt;FONT size=4&gt;The Associated Press&lt;/FONT&gt;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&lt;FONT size=4&gt;Two-thirds of parents said they are very concerned about sex and violence the nation’s children are exposed to in the media, and there would be broad support for new federal limits on such material on television, said a survey released Tuesday.&lt;BR&gt;Yet the report released by the nonpartisan Kaiser Family Foundation found that two in three parents said they already closely track their children’s television viewing and use of the Internet and video games.&lt;BR&gt;Only one in five parents conceded they should do a better job - about the same fraction who said their own children see a lot of inappropriate material. Parents, teachers and friends have far more influence over children than the media, respondents said.&lt;BR&gt;“There’s a common assumption they (parents) feel overwhelmed, behind the curve when it comes to their kids and the Internet, like they’re at a technological disadvantage,” said Vicky Rideout, who directed the Kaiser study. “We didn’t find that in this survey.”&lt;BR&gt;But parents “are fooling themselves” if they believe they have that much control, an expert on the effect the media have on children said during a panel discussion that accompanied the release of the report.&lt;BR&gt;“Parents think they are controlling the media, kids say they are not,” said Victor Strasburger, a professor of pediatrics at the University of New Mexico School of Medicine.&lt;BR&gt;Kaiser, which conducts health policy research, released its study at a time of intensified public focus on the impact of violence, sex and adult language used on television, the Internet, music, video games and the movies.&lt;BR&gt;Earlier this month, a federal appeals court invalidated a Federal Communications Commission prohibition against accidentally broadcast profanities.&lt;BR&gt;In April, the FCC issued a report to Congress saying lawmakers could regulate television violence without violating the First Amendment’s free speech protections.&lt;BR&gt;The Kaiser study found that two-thirds of parents said they would support new limits on television content. The question did not specify what the rules might be, though it mentioned that some have proposed restricting the sex and violence that could be shown during the early evening.&lt;BR&gt;“Clearly there’s a need for both the industry and our public servants to consider how to make this better,” Tim Winter, president of the Parents Television Council, said in an interview. The council is critical of violence and sex in the media.&lt;BR&gt;Jim Dyke, executive director of TV Watch, a coalition that includes some television networks and opposes government control of TV programming, said parents are doing a better job of controlling their children’s viewing habits.&lt;BR&gt;“If parents can make these decisions and enforce these decisions, why should the government,” he said.&lt;BR&gt;While about half said they are very concerned that their own children see too much violence and sexual material, that was down from more than six in 10 who expressed such worries in a 1998 Kaiser survey. Black and Hispanic parents were more likely than whites to voice that concern.&lt;BR&gt;About three-fourths rated exposure to inappropriate material as one of their top concerns as a parent, or a big worry. Television and the Internet were most frequently cited as the leading sources of angst.&lt;BR&gt;While two-thirds said they closely watch their children’s media use, 18 percent said they should do more while another 16 percent said such monitoring is not necessary. Of those who said they need to do more, most said they haven’t because media exposure is too widespread or they were too busy.&lt;BR&gt;The report also found:&lt;BR&gt;n One in four said the media are mainly a negative influence on their children, about a third said they are mainly positive and slightly more than that said they have little impact.&lt;BR&gt;Three in four with children 9 or older who use the Internet at home said they know a lot about what their children do online. Most said they have checked their children’s e-mail, profiles on social networking sites like MySpace, and the Web sites they visit.&lt;BR&gt;About four in 10 who own televisions with V-chips, which can block certain television shows, were aware they had the technology. Of those, nearly half said they have used it.&lt;BR&gt;The Kaiser survey of 1,008 randomly chosen parents of children age 2 to 17, has a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 4 percentage points. It was conducted last Oct. 2-27 by Princeton Survey Research Associates International, a private firm.&lt;/FONT&gt;&lt;/P&gt;</description> 
    <dc:creator>Michael</dc:creator> 
    <pubDate>Wed, 20 Jun 2007 05:00:00 GMT</pubDate> 
    <guid isPermaLink="false">f1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:11342</guid> 
    
</item>

    </channel>
</rss>