Wednesday, December 12, 2012
Condominium Wins Lawsuit Against Developer for Faulty Work
In what will be good news to condominium associations, the Appeals Court today held that a condominium unit owners' association may recover damages from a builder for negligent design or construction of common area property where damages are reasonably determinable, where the association otherwise lacks a remedy, and where the association acts within the time allowed by the applicable statute of limitations. Wyman v. Ayer Properties , LLC, Mass. Appeals Court Docket No. 11-P-1046. The case involved a builder who renovated an old mill building in Lowell and there were leaks in the roof, windows and masonry. This case effectively gives condominium trustees the right to sue for damages to the common areas. It could also extend what was a one year warranty for new construction to three years, and be interpreted to add the option to recover damages for renovations (as opposed to new construction). Glickman Turley LLP represents condominium trustees and unit owners in litigation, and we welcome this decision.
Thursday, December 6, 2012
"United We Dream"
"United We Dream"
United We Dream (unitedwedream.org) held its annual congress to celebrate its recent gains in helping young people who live in the United States without documentation. The group cited the recent Obama administration program of deferred action for young educated immigrants to remain in the United States without fear of deportation and recent laws in California and Maryland expanding access to state colleges and universities. United We Dream will be very active in supporting comprehensive immigration reform promised by the President and members of Congress.
For representation on immigration matters, please contact Glickman Turley LLP at 617-399-7770.
Glickman Turley's experienced attorneys represent individuals on a wide range of immigration matters, as well as other legal issues. Please contact our attorneys if you wish to discuss representation on immigration matters, real estate purchase and sales, condominium associations, criminal defense, non-profit law, civil litigation, business litigation, business law, trademark law, probate matters including wills, powers of attorney, health care proxy, same-sex co-parent adoptions, guardianships, animal law, or LGBT legal matters.
Wednesday, December 5, 2012
Operating Under the Influence conviction reversed
The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed that a Judge may not instruct a jury that a defendant in an OUI (Operating Under the Influence) charge does not have to take a breathalyzer test. The jury instruction was ruled a violation of defendant's constitutional rights under the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution and the conviction was reversed. (Commonwealth v. Gibson, November 29, 2012).
For representation on OUI charges, please contact Glickman Turley LLP at 617-399-7770.
Glickman Turley's experienced attorneys represent individuals on a wide range of criminal matters, as well as other legal issues. Please contact our attorneys if you wish to discuss representation on immigration matters, real estate purchase and sales, condominium associations, criminal defense, non-profit law, civil litigation, business litigation, business law, trademark law, probate matters including wills, powers of attorney, health care proxy, same-sex co-parent adoptions, guardianships, animal law, or LGBT legal matters.
The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed that a Judge may not instruct a jury that a defendant in an OUI (Operating Under the Influence) charge does not have to take a breathalyzer test. The jury instruction was ruled a violation of defendant's constitutional rights under the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution and the conviction was reversed. (Commonwealth v. Gibson, November 29, 2012).
For representation on OUI charges, please contact Glickman Turley LLP at 617-399-7770.
Glickman Turley's experienced attorneys represent individuals on a wide range of criminal matters, as well as other legal issues. Please contact our attorneys if you wish to discuss representation on immigration matters, real estate purchase and sales, condominium associations, criminal defense, non-profit law, civil litigation, business litigation, business law, trademark law, probate matters including wills, powers of attorney, health care proxy, same-sex co-parent adoptions, guardianships, animal law, or LGBT legal matters.
Immigration Reform Proposed by Hispanic Caucus
The Congressional Hispanic Caucus has proposed comprehensive immigration reform. The proposed legislation includes a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants, more visas for highly skilled math and science workers, a guest worker program and immigrant verification and enforcement. Both Democrats and Republicans state that they are interested in passing immigration reform next year.
For representation on immigration matters, please contact Glickman Turley LLP at 617-399-7770.
Glickman Turley's experienced attorneys represent individuals on a wide range of immigration matters, as well as other legal issues. Please contact our attorneys if you wish to discuss representation on immigration matters, real estate purchase and sales, condominium associations, criminal defense, non-profit law, civil litigation, business litigation, business law, trademark law, probate matters including wills, powers of attorney, health care proxy, same-sex co-parent adoptions, guardianships, animal law, or LGBT legal matters.
Prosecutorial discretion may be extended to family
Prosecutorial discretion may be extended to family
In an unusual decision, the First Circuit Court of Appeals stayed the deportation of a 21 year old Armenian and his parents for 90 days to allow the Department of Homeland Security to consider their request for deferred action to remain in the United States as an exercise of prosecutorial discretion. The Court noted that the son appeared to meet the criteria for prosectorial discretion set forth by DHS in the Morton memorandum and that while the parents did not strictly meet these criteria, the Government "may well wish to avoid splitting up the family by declining to remove them as well." Gasparian v. Holder (No. 11-2231, First Circuit Court of Appeals, December 3, 2012.)
For representation on immigration matters, please contact Glickman Turley LLP at 617-399-7770.
Glickman Turley's experienced attorneys represent individuals on a wide range of immigration matters, as well as other legal issues. Please contact our attorneys if you wish to discuss representation on immigration matters, real estate purchase and sales, condominium associations, criminal defense, non-profit law, civil litigation, business litigation, business law, trademark law, probate matters including wills, powers of attorney, health care proxy, same-sex co-parent adoptions, guardianships, animal law, or LGBT legal matters.
In an unusual decision, the First Circuit Court of Appeals stayed the deportation of a 21 year old Armenian and his parents for 90 days to allow the Department of Homeland Security to consider their request for deferred action to remain in the United States as an exercise of prosecutorial discretion. The Court noted that the son appeared to meet the criteria for prosectorial discretion set forth by DHS in the Morton memorandum and that while the parents did not strictly meet these criteria, the Government "may well wish to avoid splitting up the family by declining to remove them as well." Gasparian v. Holder (No. 11-2231, First Circuit Court of Appeals, December 3, 2012.)
For representation on immigration matters, please contact Glickman Turley LLP at 617-399-7770.
Glickman Turley's experienced attorneys represent individuals on a wide range of immigration matters, as well as other legal issues. Please contact our attorneys if you wish to discuss representation on immigration matters, real estate purchase and sales, condominium associations, criminal defense, non-profit law, civil litigation, business litigation, business law, trademark law, probate matters including wills, powers of attorney, health care proxy, same-sex co-parent adoptions, guardianships, animal law, or LGBT legal matters.
Monday, November 19, 2012
MA State Colleges and Universities To Allow In-State Tuition For Illegal Immigrants
The Boston Globe reported today that Governor Deval Patrick (D-MA) will direct state colleges and universities to permit illegal immigrants to pay resident in-state tuition and fees when they obtain work permits through the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) federal program.
DACA is a federal program enacted in June that allows undocumented immigrants aged 30 or younger, who arrived to the US before age 16, to obtain work permits and to avoid deportation for two years. The applicants must meet other requirements to be approved through DACA. The fee is $465.
DACA did not require states to provide in-state tuition to illegal immigrants - President Obama left that as a decision to be made by individual states.
Gov. Patrick will send his directive to the Board of Higher Education today, with the change to take place immediately.
For more on this story, click here.
For representation on immigration matters, please contact Glickman Turley LLP at 617-399-7770.
Glickman Turley's experienced attorneys represent individuals on a wide range of immigration matters, as well as other legal issues. Please contact our attorneys if you wish to discuss representation on immigration matters, real estate purchase and sales, condominium associations, criminal defense, non-profit law, civil litigation, business litigation, business law, trademark law, probate matters including wills, powers of attorney, health care proxy, same-sex co-parent adoptions, guardianships, animal law, or LGBT legal matters.
DACA is a federal program enacted in June that allows undocumented immigrants aged 30 or younger, who arrived to the US before age 16, to obtain work permits and to avoid deportation for two years. The applicants must meet other requirements to be approved through DACA. The fee is $465.
DACA did not require states to provide in-state tuition to illegal immigrants - President Obama left that as a decision to be made by individual states.
Gov. Patrick will send his directive to the Board of Higher Education today, with the change to take place immediately.
For more on this story, click here.
For representation on immigration matters, please contact Glickman Turley LLP at 617-399-7770.
Glickman Turley's experienced attorneys represent individuals on a wide range of immigration matters, as well as other legal issues. Please contact our attorneys if you wish to discuss representation on immigration matters, real estate purchase and sales, condominium associations, criminal defense, non-profit law, civil litigation, business litigation, business law, trademark law, probate matters including wills, powers of attorney, health care proxy, same-sex co-parent adoptions, guardianships, animal law, or LGBT legal matters.
Friday, November 16, 2012
A Challenge to Mandatory Detention
The United States District Court, District of New Jersey ruled in the case of Garfield Gayle, Sheldon Francois, Neville Sukhu v. Janet Napolitano where the issue was whether individuals in removal proceedings are subject to mandatory detention. Mandatory detenetion is "detention without possibility of a bond hearing or any other determination of whether detention is justified based on danger or flight risk."
Plaintiffs were seeking the an order from the court that would prevent "the government from mandatorily detaining them without the opportunity for a fair hearing at which an Immigration Judge ascertains whether they have a substantial challenge to removal and are therefore eligible for an individualized bond hearing."
When the government charges individuals on grounds of removal as enumerated under 8 USC sec. 1226(c) - applying to non-citizens who are "deportable or inadmissible based on specific crimes, including various misdemeanors and minor drug offenses" - they are subjected to mandatory detention. The exception is if an individual can show a very high burden to an IJ that the government is "substantially unlikely to prevail on the charges against them." Mandatory detention can last for months and years.
The Court held that mandatory detention violated the "Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment..unless it is reasonably related to the purpose of ensuring availability for removal and protecting the community, and is accompanied by adequate procedural protection." The Court stated that the government had "inadequate hearing procedures violat[ing] the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment and/or the Immigration and Nationality Act, and that [the government] must provide constitutionally-adequate hearings to Named Plaintiffs and proposed class members - ie, hearings that use the proper standard for when mandatory detention applies and to include adequate notice; place the initial burden on the government to establish prima facie deportability or inadmissibility on a ground that triggers mandatory detention; provide the opportunity for Named Plaintiffs and proposed class members to show that they have substantial challenges to removal and are thus not properly subject to mandatory detention; and provide a contemporaneous record of such proceedings."
For representation on immigration matters, please contact Glickman Turley LLP at 617-399-7770.
Glickman Turley's experienced attorneys represent individuals on a wide range of immigration matters, as well as other legal issues. Please contact our attorneys if you wish to discuss representation on immigration matters, real estate purchase and sales, condominium associations, criminal defense, non-profit law, civil litigation, business litigation, business law, trademark law, probate matters including wills, powers of attorney, health care proxy, same-sex co-parent adoptions, guardianships, animal law, or LGBT legal matters.
Plaintiffs were seeking the an order from the court that would prevent "the government from mandatorily detaining them without the opportunity for a fair hearing at which an Immigration Judge ascertains whether they have a substantial challenge to removal and are therefore eligible for an individualized bond hearing."
When the government charges individuals on grounds of removal as enumerated under 8 USC sec. 1226(c) - applying to non-citizens who are "deportable or inadmissible based on specific crimes, including various misdemeanors and minor drug offenses" - they are subjected to mandatory detention. The exception is if an individual can show a very high burden to an IJ that the government is "substantially unlikely to prevail on the charges against them." Mandatory detention can last for months and years.
The Court held that mandatory detention violated the "Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment..unless it is reasonably related to the purpose of ensuring availability for removal and protecting the community, and is accompanied by adequate procedural protection." The Court stated that the government had "inadequate hearing procedures violat[ing] the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment and/or the Immigration and Nationality Act, and that [the government] must provide constitutionally-adequate hearings to Named Plaintiffs and proposed class members - ie, hearings that use the proper standard for when mandatory detention applies and to include adequate notice; place the initial burden on the government to establish prima facie deportability or inadmissibility on a ground that triggers mandatory detention; provide the opportunity for Named Plaintiffs and proposed class members to show that they have substantial challenges to removal and are thus not properly subject to mandatory detention; and provide a contemporaneous record of such proceedings."
For representation on immigration matters, please contact Glickman Turley LLP at 617-399-7770.
Glickman Turley's experienced attorneys represent individuals on a wide range of immigration matters, as well as other legal issues. Please contact our attorneys if you wish to discuss representation on immigration matters, real estate purchase and sales, condominium associations, criminal defense, non-profit law, civil litigation, business litigation, business law, trademark law, probate matters including wills, powers of attorney, health care proxy, same-sex co-parent adoptions, guardianships, animal law, or LGBT legal matters.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)