Lemon Law Attorney
Campaign Cash Mirrors a High Court’s Rulings
|
|
In the fall of 2004, Terrence O’Donnell, an affable judge with the placid good looks of a small-market news anchor, was running hard to keep his seat on the Ohio Supreme Court. He was also considering two important class-action lawsuits that had been argued many months before. In the weeks before the election, Justice O’Donnell’s campaign accepted thousands of dollars from the political action committees of three companies that were defendants in the suits. Two of the cases dealt with defective cars, and one involved a toxic substance. Weeks after winning his race, Justice O’Donnell joined majorities that handed the three companies significant victories. Justice O’Donnell’s conduct was unexceptional. In one of the cases, every justice in the 4-to-3 majority had taken money from affiliates of the companies. None of the dissenters had done so, but they had accepted contributions from lawyers for the plaintiffs. Thirty-nine states elect judges, and 30 states are holding elections for seats on their highest courts this year. Spending in these races is skyrocketing, with some judges raising $2 million or more for a single campaign. As the amounts rise, questions about whether money is polluting the independence of the judiciary are being fiercely debated across the nation. And nowhere is the battle for judicial seats more ferocious than in Ohio. An examination of the Ohio Supreme Court by The New York Times found that its justices routinely sat on cases after receiving campaign contributions from the parties involved or from groups that filed supporting briefs. On average, they voted in favor of contributors 70 percent of the time. Justice O’Donnell voted for his contributors 91 percent of the time, the highest rate of any justice on the court. In the 12 years that were studied, the justices almost never disqualified themselves from hearing their contributors’ cases. In the 215 cases with the most direct potential conflicts of interest, justices recused themselves just 9 times. Even sitting justices have started to question the current system. “I never felt so much like a hooker down by the bus station in any race I’ve ever been in as I did in a judicial race,” said Justice Paul E. Pfeifer, a Republican member of the Ohio Supreme Court. “Everyone interested in contributing has very specific interests.” “They mean to be buying a vote,” Justice Pfeifer added. “Whether they succeed or not, it’s hard to say.” Three recent cases, two in Illinois and one in West Virginia, have put the complaints in sharp focus. Elected justices there recently refused to disqualify themselves from hearing suits in which tens or hundreds of millions of dollars were at stake. The defendants were insurance, tobacco and coal companies whose supporters had spent millions of dollars to help elect the justices. After a series of big-money judicial contests around the nation, the balance of power in several state high courts has tipped in recent years in favor of corporations and insurance companies. |
Related Articles from Attorney for Lemon Law
State high courts tackle punitives.
Punitive damages are under attack again, this time in state supreme courts. The Center for Constitutional Litigation (CCL)--building on expertise it developed in U.S. Supreme Court cases like State Farm v. Campbell, Cooper v. Leatherman, and BMW v. Gore---is helping defend plaintiffs' rights to seek punitive damages. Three recent cases are likely to shape the law for years to come in Oregon and California--and perhaps in other states. Oregon Supreme Court Philip Morris USA, Inc. v. Williams. On June 9, 2004, the Oregon Court of...
Awards for attorney fees trump damages.(News)
Courts in Wisconsin and California have ordered unsuccessful auto defendants to pay attorney fees that dwarf the compensatory damages awarded to the plaintiffs. The two rulings may make it easier for consumers to persuade lawyers to represent them as plaintiffs in disputes with vehicle manufacturers and dealerships. "It shows lawyers they can take a relatively small case - $5,000 to $10,000 in dispute - and if the defendants don't settle, and you take it to trial and even appeal, you'll get paid your rate, whatever is reasonable,'' says Vincent Megna of Waukesha, who represents the plaintiff in the Wisconsin case.
Ohio Supreme Court justices often decide cases involving donors
In the fall of 2004, Terrence O'Donnell, an affable judge with the placid good looks of a small-market news anchor, was running hard to keep his seat on the Ohio Supreme Court. He was also considering two important class-action lawsuits that had been argued many months before. In the weeks before the election, O'Donnell's campaign accepted thousands of dollars from the political action committees of three companies that were defendants in the suits. Two of the cases dealt with defective cars, and one involved a toxic substance. Weeks after winning his race, O'Donnell joined majorities that handed the three companies significant
Tallahassee, Fla., Mayor to Begin Campaign for Attorney General.
Declaring himself a consumer advocate who can give state employees a Democratic voice in a Republican government, Tallahassee Mayor Scott Maddox said he plans to start his campaign for attorney general this week. "I'm not announcing my candidacy officially, but I'm opening a campaign account to start exploring, raising money and traveling," Maddox said Tuesday. "I'm about 90 percent there. I want to use a network of mayors and city commissioners around the state to make sure this is do-able." Maddox, 33, visited more than 400 towns last year as president of the Florida League of Cities. He briefly considered
Davis allies plan to sue over recall petitions
- The campaign to oust Gov. Gray Davis moved into its second critical stage Monday: Recall supporters announced they have collected nearly double the signatures needed, and Davis' allies vowed to file a lawsuit today challenging how they were gathered. The lawsuit signals that Davis and his defenders are using every means available to question the legitimacy of the recall, which they have dubbed a right-wing coup to topple the government. Recall supporters called the lawsuit a frivolous and cynical attempt to overturn the will of 1.6 million petition signers. Lawyers opposed to the recall said petition circulators acted as