|
Search
Search through the thousands of lawsuits, complaints and recalls on our site.
 |
Case ID: 4938 | Government | 10/19/2006
A Superior Court judge expanded a lawsuit to include all taxpayers who had to pay North Carolina taxes on interest from out-of-state government bonds since 2000, the North Carolina Court of Appeals ruled.
Two Forsyth County taxpayers sued the state in February 2004, arguing that North Carolina unlawfully treats interest income from government bonds originating in North Carolina different from bonds from other states. The interest on North Carolina state or municipal bonds is not taxed. Superior Court Judge Lindsay Davis agreed to expand the case to a class-action lawsuit to cover all who paid taxes on the interest income - individuals, companies and other entities - from Oct. 29, 2000, until the case is resolved. That means all entities could receive refunds on taxes paid if the lawsuit is successful. The Attorney General's Office, which is representing the state's defendants, appealed, arguing the judge lacked jurisdiction over the case. "The decision to grant or deny class certification rests within the discretion of the trial court and will not be overturned absent an abuse of that discretion," Court of Appeals Judge Linda Stephens wrote in the unanimous opinion. Stephens added she could not find the abuse. The Attorney General's Office, who is representing the state's defendants, appealed, arguing the judge lacked jurisdiction over the case. "The decision to grant or deny class certification rests within the discretion of the trial court and will not be overturned absent an abuse of that discretion," Court of Appeals Judge Linda Stephens wrote in the unanimous opinion. Stephens added she couldn't find that abuse. Judges Martha Geer and Linda McGee concurred with Stephens' opinion. Barring a request by the state for the state Supreme Court to rule on the class-action group, the case now will return to the trial court for a ruling on the lawsuit's merits, said a Greensboro attorney representing Lessie Dunn and Erwin Cook Jr., the original two plaintiffs. Smith projected a ruling could come in late 2007. The Attorney General's Office is reviewing the ruling but hasn't decided whether to seek a review by the justices, a spokeswoman for the Attorney General's Office said. The total possible refund amount is unclear. A 2004 legislative report by the Justice Department set the potential loss of up to $150 million. Attorneys claim the payments likely would total tens of millions of dollars. At Lawcash.com, it is our goal to keep you informed about important legal cases, class actions and settlements. Our lawyers offer free legal evaluations in tort cases, class actions, personal injury, and other lawsuits because we are dedicated to helping you resolve your legal complaints. Other Government Cases of Interest The parties have reached a tentative settlement in an action filed against the state of Indiana on behalf of all Indiana residents with disabilities who are Medical Assistance recipients and who are either in a Medicaid funded facility or who are at imminent risk of such placement and who have either applied for Medicaid funded services in the community through the Aged and Disabled funded home- and community-based waivers administered by the state or who would be eligible for such services if they were available. Interested persons should contact the class attorneys for more information. The parties have reached a proposed $6,305,000 settlement in a class action against Coast National Insurance Company by former California automobile insurance policyholders who claim that Coast National wrongly canceled their policies for nonpayment of premiums. To recover under the settlement, class members must submit a claim form postmarked by September 15, 2003. United States Army Officials recently issued a release stating that soldiers will no longer be allowed to wear body armor other than the protective gear issued by the military. Army officials reported that the order was prompted by concerns that soldiers or their families were buying inadequate or untested commercial armor from private companies, including the popular Dragon Skin gear made by California-based Pinnacle Armor. A class action has been filed against body armor manufacturer Armor Holdings, Inc., on behalf of all persons, agencies, or entities that purchased, owned, have been issued, or possess vests containing Zylon, manufactured by Armor Holdings between April 7, 1999, and April 7, 2004. The action alleges that Zylon, the protective fiber used in the vests, deteriorates when exposed to heat and other conditions over time so that the vests lose their protective qualities. A class action has been filed on behalf of renters and rental property owners in Ocean Township, New Jersey. The case alleges that the Township has enacted unreasonable and unconstitutional ordinances to reduce the number of rental property units within city limits. The plaintiffs seek to enjoin the city from enforcing these ordinances. Low-income citizens, backed by antipoverty groups, filed a class action that challenges a federal law requiring proof of citizenship in exchange for benefits under the government's Medicaid health insurance program for the poor. Critics say the law, set to go into effect July 1, will hurt the vulnerable who may be unable to provide original documents like birth certificates. Those most in jeopardy are those in nursing homes, with mental and physical disabilities, and the victims of natural disasters. |
IT'S FREE
|
© 2000 - 2008 Copyright. All rights reserved nola3, llc.
