Friday, Jul 30th

Last update:09:32:59 PM GMT

RSS

Welcome to Renzulli Law Firm, LLP. Our firm was founded on a single, basic premise: that clients and their needs come first. We have established a firm that emphasizes the highest ethical standards, excellence in the practice of law and diversity and individuality in its attorneys. Renzulli Law Firm synthesizes the collective knowledge and experience of former partners and associates of multi-national law firms. We are a full-service firm with a truly national and international practice committed to ensuring that our clients achieve successful results in a pragmatic and cost-effective fashion. We invite you to explore our website and contact us so that we may discuss how Renzulli Law Firm can best serve you.

You are here: Home

Supreme Court Applies the Second Amendment to the States in McDonald v. Chicago

E-mail Print PDF
On June 28, 2010, the United States Supreme Court issued its decision in the McDonald v. Chicago case, holding that the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms was incorporated through the Fourteenth Amendment and is fully applicable to the states.

On June 26, 2008, the Supreme Court issued its decision in District of Columbia v. Heller, holding that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms and, on that basis, striking down the District of Columbia’s ban on possessing a handgun in the home. The decision in District of Columbia v. Heller, however, only applied to federal gun control laws. In its McDonald decision, the Court addressed the issue of whether the Second Amendment also applies to state and local laws through the Fourteenth Amendment, which states in relevant part that: “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law. . . .” The first clause is known as the privileges and immunities clause; the second is known as the due process clause.

Justice Alito wrote the opinion of the Court, which was joined by Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Scalia and Kennedy. Justice Thomas joined in the judgment, and certain parts of Justice Alito’s opinion. Justice Scalia wrote a concurring opinion and Justice Thomas wrote an opinion concurring in part and concurring in the judgment. Justice Stevens wrote a dissenting opinion and Justice Breyer wrote a dissenting opinion in which Justices Ginsburg and Sotomayor joined.

Read more...

National Defense Magazine Features Eye-Opening FCPA Article by John Renzulli and Michael Patrick

E-mail Print PDF

National Defense Magazine, one of the major publications in the defense industry, featured John Renzulli and Michael Patrick's article Defense Contractors Increasingly Targeted in Corruption Investigations in its August 2010 issue.

The article addresses the exploding costs associated with bribery and corruption around the world, and especially in the United States under the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (or FCPA). Mr. Renzulli and Mr. Patrick explain in the article that the key to avoiding the high costs associated with bribery and corruption and, indeed, even just the allegations of bribery or corruption, is to effectively address risks through stringent, comprehensive compliance programs.

Mr. Renzulli and Mr. Patrick assist corporations in designing and implementing compliance programs that are tailored to the individual corporation's needs and budget. For more information, please contact John Renzulli or Michael Patrick.

 

Christopher Renzulli and John Tait Featured in DRI's FOR THE DEFENSE Magazine

E-mail Print PDF

alt

 

Attachments:
Download this file (RenzulliLawFirm-MRP.pdf)Download the Article Here621 Kb
Read more...

Supreme Court Denies Plaintiff's Petition for Certiorari in Ileto v. Glock, Inc.

E-mail Print PDF

On May 24, 2010, the United States Supreme Court denied plaintiff Lilian S. Ileto’s petition for a writ of certiorari, bringing this decade-long case to a close.

The Ileto case arose from Bufford Furrow’s shooting of several children at the North Valley Jewish Community Center and subsequent murder of U.S. postal worker Joseph S. Ileto in Los Angeles on August 10, 1999. Mr. Furrow was later arrested and is serving life in prison. The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act ("PLCAA"), which required the immediate dismissal of lawsuits against firearms manufacturers and sellers based on the criminal or unlawful misuse of a firearm by the plaintiff or a third party, was signed into law on October 26, 2005. Renzulli Law Firm, LLP filed a motion to dismiss the complaint against defendants Glock, Inc., RSR Management Corporation and RSR Group Nevada, Inc. pursuant to the PLCAA, which the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California granted on March 6, 2006. On May 11, 2009, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of the complaint against Glock, Inc., RSR Management Corporation and RSR Group Nevada, Inc.

Read more...

H.R. 6381: Will Congress Strip Class III Medical Device Manufacturers of Their Pre-Emption Defenses?

E-mail Print PDF

In its February 20, 2008 decision in Riegel v. Medtronic, Inc., 552 U.S. 312, 128 S.Ct. 999, 169 L.Ed.2d 892 (2008) the United States Supreme Court affirmed that the express pre-emption clause in the Medical Device Amendments (MDA) of 1976, 21 U.S.C. § 360k(a), completely bars certain lawsuits against Class III medical device manufacturers.  Just a few months after Riegel was handed down, a bill designed to overrule this decision was introduced in the House of Representatives. This article analyzes Riegel and tracks the legislative efforts to undermine this decision by amending the MDA to allow state common-law claims against Class III medical device manufacturers.

The plaintiffs in Riegel filed a civil lawsuit against Medtronic, Inc. in which they claimed that a balloon catheter that ruptured during the course of an angioplasty was negligently and defectively designed, tested, manufactured, and labeled. Prior to the incident, Medtronic, Inc. sought and obtained premarket approval from the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to market this catheter as a Class III medical device under the MDA. The “rigorous” premarket approval process requires the manufacturer to submit an application that contains, among other things, detailed information on the device’s safety and effectiveness. The FDA spends an average of 1,200 hours reviewing each premarket approval application and only grants premarket approval if it finds there is a reasonable assurance of the device’s safety and effectiveness. 21 U.S.C. § 360e(d). More information on the premarket approval process can be found on the FDA’s website.
 
Read more...

New York Courts Apply the Expanded Fireman's Rule

E-mail Print PDF

On April 13, 2010, the Appellate Division, First Department, vacated an earlier decision it had issued in Ferriolo v. City of New York, and upon reconsideration, found that the Fireman’s Rule bars a negligence action brought by a police officer who was shot by a fellow officer while he was changing into his uniform in the police station locker room. Ferriolo is the first Appellate Division to interpret and apply the recent New York Court of Appeals decision in Walder v. City of New York.  The Court in Walder had indicated a shift away from the requirement that the Fireman’s Rule applied only where the injured plaintiff was performing “some action taken in furtherance of a specific police or firefighter function” which exposed the plaintiff to “a heightened risk of sustaining the particular injury.” The Court of Appeals in Walder found that the Fireman’s Rule barred a negligence action brought by a police officer who was injured when his automobile was lifted four feet off the ground by a movable security barrier as he was driving into the police parking lot to begin his shift.

New York Court of Appeals Expands Scope of Scaffold Law

E-mail Print PDF

The New York Court of Appeals recently extended the scope of New York labor law in an interesting decision titled Runner v. New York Stock Exchange.

This action was commenced in Federal Court by an electrician, Victor Runner, to recover damages for injuries he sustained while engaged in a major rehabilitation project at the New York Stock Exchange. The accident occurred as plaintiff and his co-workers were attempting to move a large reel of cable, weighing in excess of 800 pounds, from one part of the building complex to another. The cable reel needed to be moved down a short flight of stairs, but no hoisting device was provided for the workers’ use. Accordingly, plaintiff’s supervisor directed his crew to use a rope to restrain the reel as it was rolled down the steps.

At the foreman’s direction, the rope was affixed to the reel and wound several times around a pipe, which was placed behind a door jamb in order to serve as a brake. Plaintiff and two co-workers stood behind the pipe, holding the free end of the rope. After two other co-workers moved the reel to the stairway, the reel descended quickly. Plaintiff was dragged forward toward the pipe and his right hand was crushed between the pipe and rope. As a result of the accident, four fingers of plaintiff’s right hand were severed, and plaintiff fractured his right thumb and two fingers on his left hand.

Read more...

Page 1 of 3

  • «
  •  Start 
  •  Prev 
  •  1 
  •  2 
  •  3 
  •  Next 
  •  End 
  • »