Six homeless people who had been convicted under the laws sued the city in 2009, saying their constitutional rights had been violated. The ruling was a victory for homeless advocates, who have long said that laws like the City of Boise’s waste public money, do not alleviate root causes of homelessness like shortages of affordable housing, and punish people simply for being poor. A survey of 187 cities by the group found that from 2006 to 2016, the number of bans on camping in public increased by 69 percent. Cities had already been reviewing the homelessness laws they had on the books. John Coté, a spokesman for the San Francisco city attorney’s office, said Wednesday that the office was reviewing the city’s laws to make sure they did not run afoul of the Ninth Circuit ruling.
San Francisco voters passed a law in 2016 that prohibits tents on sidewalks, but the tents can be removed only if the city offers placement in shelters or other options for housing. The city must also offer to transport people to the homes of friends or family who could take them in, and give 24-hour notice before removing the tents. Ms. Foscarinis said her group had identified more than 20 other city ordinances that could be affected by the ruling. Mr.
Journee said the city could ask the full Ninth Circuit court to review the panel’s decision, or appeal the ruling to the Supreme Court. The city has three homeless shelters, which are routinely at capacity. At least one of the homeless people suing the city declined to enter that program because of his religious beliefs, and he was then cited for violating a city ordinance when he was sleeping outside. The opinion acknowledged that the City of Boise has rules that direct the police not to cite homeless people if they are sleeping outside when the shelters are full.
Year in Review: Unusual Legal Cases in 2015
Whether it’s unusual legal claims, or dumb criminals, 2015 was riddled with stories that often had us shaking our head.Rick Springfield’s Butt Injury Case. A Key Largo man, who visited Doctors Hospital in Miami, believed that was what had become of his amputated leg. Nearly one month after his amputation the man was greeted at his home by police who had suspected he had become victim to foul play when they found his detached leg in a local waste management facility. The man has now filed suit against the hospital claiming public embarrassment, invasion of privacy and emotional distress amongst his sufferings. In June, a Kentucky man decided to take a more proactive approach to his arrest for driving under the influence when he drove while drunk to the local police station to turn himself in.
The man drank his last pint of beer before driving to station and slamming on the brakes, narrowly missing a patrol car. This wasn’t Kentucky’s only unusual legal incident this year. In April, a Kentucky man was arrested for DUI while riding his horse. A woman claimed that her 8-year old nephew lept into her arms when trying to give her a hug causing her to fall and injure her wrist. A New York Supreme Court disagreed with the aunt, and dismissed her claim in October.
His filing documents cited that the park did not display any warnings against the possibility of falling pine cones, and he claimed that the falling object caused significant and lasting brain damage. Of course, we can’t guarantee that 2015 will be the last year for these unusual legal stories.
Unusual Or Onerous Terms
A recent construction case serves as a useful reminder of this. Unusual or onerous clauses in your standard terms could include, for example, any provisions limiting or excluding liability for damages, or indeed any provisions which might cause a significant imbalance in the other party’s rights. Given that this was a construction law case, the onerous term in question related to a condition which had to be fulfilled before an extension of time for carrying out building works was granted to a sub-contractor under a building contract. In practice, this means printing them boldly and somewhere prominent. The more unusual or onerous the clause, the greater the notice which must be given.
This article was written for Law-Now, CMS Cameron McKenna’s free online information service. Law-Now information is for general purposes and guidance only. The information and opinions expressed in all Law-Now articles are not necessarily comprehensive and do not purport to give professional or legal advice. All Law-Now information relates to circumstances prevailing at the date of its original publication and may not have been updated to reflect subsequent developments. The original publication date for this article was 31/07/2008.
Disabled children with a tendency to abuse others physically should not fall outside the protection of discrimination legislation. Clyde & Co. Product liability is a fast-evolving landscape, driven by a range of factors from tightening regulation to mass product litigation.