Supreme Court

Amber Willard GLENDALE -- Prosecutors will meet next week to decide how to proceed after the state Supreme Court rejected indictments filed against three teens accused in the stabbing death of Raul Aguirre. Aguirre, a 17-year-old senior at Hoover High School, was stabbed to death on May 5, 2000, while trying to intervene in what police have called a gang fight. Three teens -- Karen Terteryan, Rafael Gevorgyan and Anait Msryan -- were arrested hours after Aguirre died and have been held on bail since.

DOWNTOWN -- U.S. Sen. Barbara Boxer made a stop in Burbank on Tuesday, announcing her opposition to Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito. Even as Boxer spoke in the Burbank City Council Chambers, Alito's nomination was being sent from the Senate Judiciary Committee to the full Senate. His nomination was passed on a 10 to 8 vote split along party lines. "I think it's appropriate that Sen. Boxer was here on election day," said Paul Krekorian, president of Burbank Unified School District's Board of Education, who attended the news conference.

Mr. Steel notes that the Supreme Court ruled that the internment of U.S. citizens because of their ethnicity was constitutional. Does constitutionality make it right? I think not. The Supreme Court once found slavery and segregation constitutional. This only points out that the Constitution does not necessarily uphold morality. The Constitution's meaning is still argued every year before the Supreme Court. The Constitution allows for pragmatic rationalizations in the context of time and situation.

Re: "Supreme Court's role is to interpret the law": While Charles Unger, in "Counselor's Corner" (Community Forum, Aug. 17), has correctly analyzed the legal and political ramifications of Atwater, his conclusion that the Supreme Court failed to protect citizens is wrong. The role of the Supreme Court was defined almost 200 years ago in Marbury v. Madison, and it remains unchallenged so far. In Marbury, the Marshall Court said, "It is emphatically the province and duty of the judiciary department to say what the law is."

The comments in the Aug. 22 News-Press by two of Glendale's civic leaders were troubling. Councilwoman Ginger Bremberg declares the recommendation of a committee of the Human Relations Coalition "reprehensible" for taking a stance against bigotry. She further characterizes discrimination as an issue that does not matter. Coalition member Larry Zarian opposes public money being given to groups that discriminate, but somehow doesn't appear to think discrimination against homosexuals matters.

Amber Willard LOS ANGELES -- Prosecutors were working Friday to prepare their request to the state's Supreme Court for review of the case against three teens accused of killing a Glendale boy more than a year ago. An appellate court sided with defense attorneys last month, tossing the grand jury indictments against Karen Terteryan, Rafael Gevorgyan and Anait Msryan, who are accused in the stabbing death of Raul Aguirre...

Ron Ruppe's letter to the editor (April 30) demonstrates why one should actually take the time to read a legal decision before making blanket statements that demonstrate complete ignorance of what the Supreme Court has ruled. His letter claims the court's decision "allows the state to ban development on privately owned land in the Tahoe area for environmental reasons and offer no compensation to the land owners." It does no such thing. The Tahoe decision relates only to temporary moratoriums placed on property owners by local and state governments.

I saw the first TV ads for Proposition 8. I was taken aback by the sheer falsehoods of the claims made about the consequences if this doesn’t pass. The first is that clergy can be sued for refusing to officiate a same-sex marriage. Well, in the four years that Massachusetts has recognized same-sex marriages, there have been no such lawsuits — because the state dictating how clergy can officiate religious ceremonies is in direct violation of the 1st Amendment. (For example, the Catholic Church has never been forced to perform a marriage for a non-Catholic or civilly divorced couple.

Josh Kleinbaum Philip Rees' quest for justice ended this week when the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that it would not hear his case against the city of Glendale. Rees sued the city after Glendale Water and Power disconnected his electricity for more than 24 hours in June 2000, seeking up to $25,000 in damages for being displaced from his home. When a judge in limited civil court ruled against him, Rees appealed the decision. And appealed. And appealed, all the way up to the country's highest court.

Owners of the Glendale Galleria have until Dec. 27 to ask the state Supreme Court to review case against Americana. DOWNTOWN GLENDALE -- Time is running out for General Growth. The owners of the Glendale Galleria, who have been embroiled in a dispute with the city over the proposed Americana at Brand project since May 2004, have one more week to ask the state Supreme Court for a review of an appellate court's denial of its case last month. General Growth had argued that the city's environmental impact report for the 15.5-acre, $264.

As the U.S. Supreme Courttackles the controversial federal law that overhauled health care, Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Burbank) today issued a statement calling for live broadcast streaming of the proceedings. The High Court declined to allow live streaming from inside the courtroom, but due to strong public interest, justices agreed to release same-day audio recordings of the arguments. In his statement, Schiff said the public should be able to tune in for the proceedings just as they could on C-SPAN for legislative debates, calling the audio tapes "a poor substitute.

Glendale officials plan to revisit a city ordinance limiting sidewalk solicitations after the U.S. Supreme Court this week rejected Redondo Beach's bid to revive regulations on where day laborers can solicit work from passing drivers. In 2010, Glendale officials postponed revisions to its own law, which is less restrictive than  Redondo Beach regulations, as they waited for the higher court decision. With that out of the way, Glendale City Atty. Mike Garcia said his office would reviewing the city's ordinance "more closely to see if additional refinements to our ordinance are necessary.

The California Supreme Court has decided to review whether cities and counties may ban medical marijuana stores. Meeting in closed session, the court Wednesday agreed to assess rulings by lower courts on how much oversight local governments may exert on medical marijuana operations. A ruling is probably a year or two away at least. The court's decision to review the appeals court decisions means they cannot be enforced pending a ruling by the state high court. Continue reading > > RELATED: Glendale officially bans marijuana dispensaries -- Maura Dolan, Los Angeles Times Photo: Marijuana being grown.

Burbank police officers investigating a rumor that a truant teenager was planning to "shoot up" Bellarmine-Jefferson High School five years ago were justified in invading the student's family home without a warrant because of concerns that violence was imminent, theU.S. Supreme Courtruled Monday. The unanimous, unsigned decision by the high court served as fresh censure of the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, with which the justices are frequently at odds. A three-judge panel of the appeals court had ruled, 2-1, against granting immunity to four Burbank Police Department officers who entered the home without a warrant.

The Supreme Court on Tuesday turned down an appeal from Applebee's International Inc., which is battling a lawsuit from more than 5,500 bartenders and servers accusing the restaurant chain of underpaying them. The high court declined to hear Applebee's case, which focuses on a practice in which restaurants pay employees reduced minimum wage by factoring in the extra boost provided by tips. Known as a “tip credit,” the practice is banned in states such as California and Minnesota but permitted in Missouri, where many of the plaintiffs work.

The California Supreme Court will decide the fate of hundreds of redevelopment agencies Thursday in a ruling on the legality of using $1.7 billion of their revenues to balance the state budget. During a hearing in November , the state high court appeared inclined to permit the Legislature and Gov. Jerry Brown to abolish municipal redevelopment agencies. But the court did not clearly indicate whether some agencies could continue if they shared their revenues with schools and special districts.

Four of the five local merchant associations are reeling from a freeze on community redevelopment funds that help them pay for projects and events throughout the year. A legal case involving redevelopment agencies is stuck in the state Supreme Court, and until a decision is made, cities cannot spend any redevelopment funds. The City Council on Tuesday had to step in to cover a $2,000 gap for the Kenneth Village Merchant's Assn. that could have forced organizers to cancel its Fall Festival because the money it usually gets from the city for reimbursement is not available.

The California Supreme Court will hear arguments Tuesday on whether conservatives who sponsored Proposition 8 are entitled to appeal last year's federal ruling that overturned the 2008 same-sex marriage ban. The court's ruling, due 90 days after argument, will determine whether all initiative sponsors in California are legally entitled to defend their measures in state court when the governor and the attorney general refuse. If the court rules against the initiative backers, then a federal appeals court is more likely to rule that ProtectMarriage.com, the sponsor of Proposition 8, also lacks standing under federal law and "Proposition 8 dies because no one will defend it," said Vikram Amar, UC Davis constitutional law professor.  L.A. NOW

The  legal battle over Proposition 8, the 2008 ballot measure that reinstated a ban on same-sex marriage, will go before the California Supreme Court on Sept. 6, when the justices will hear arguments on whether initiative proponents are entitled to defend measures they sponsored. The state high court scheduled the hearing for 10 a.m. at its San Francisco courtroom. The justices will then have 90 days to decide whether state law gives proponents of ballot measures like Proposition 8 legal standing to defend them in court when state officials refuse to do so.  L.A. NOW

The 28 Jet Propulsion Laboratory scientists suing the federal government over what they say are new invasive security screening procedures are calling for comments about space shuttle security by U.S. Solicitor Gen. Neal Katyal to be stricken from the Supreme Court record. In making his case that background checks involving medical records, personal finances and sexual preference are necessary to guarantee NASA security, Katyal told justices on Oct. 5 that holders of a JPL clearance enjoy extensive access privileges outside the La Cañada Flintridge facility.