<?xml version="1.0"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:itunes="http://www.itunes.com/dtds/podcast-1.0.dtd">
<channel>
<title>Autoblog</title>
<link>http://www.autoblog.com</link>
<description>Autoblog</description>

<language>en-us</language>
<copyright>Copyright 2013 Weblogs, Inc. The contents of this feed are available for non-commercial use only.</copyright>
<generator>Blogsmith http://www.blogsmith.com/</generator><item><title><![CDATA[Update: Corporations are not people in carpool lanes]]></title><link>http://www.autoblog.com/2013/01/12/update-corporations-are-not-people-in-carpool-lanes/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.autoblog.com/2013/01/12/update-corporations-are-not-people-in-carpool-lanes/</guid><comments>http://www.autoblog.com/2013/01/12/update-corporations-are-not-people-in-carpool-lanes/#comments</comments><description><![CDATA[<p>Filed under: <a href="http://www.autoblog.com/category/government-legal/" rel="tag">Government/Legal</a></p><a href="http://www.sfgate.com/default/article/Corporation-not-person-in-carpool-lanes-4173366.php"><img alt="traffic jam" src="http://www.blogcdn.com/green.autoblog.com/media/2011/10/california-traffic-sunset.jpg" style="width: 628px; height: 417px;" /></a><br />
<br />
Jonathon Friedman had his day in a San Francisco court, then Jurist Frank Drago had his say, declaring Friedman guilty. The case centered on a sheaf of corporation papers that Friedman used to make a statement about corporate 'personhood.' Driving in a carpool lane in the Bay Area, <a href="http://www.autoblog.com/2013/01/07/california-man-using-corporations-are-people-argument-to-chall/">Friedman was pulled over</a> for not having at least two people in the car. His response was to show the officer his business papers and, citing US Supreme Court decisions that have affirmed that corporations are people, said he indeed did have two people in the car and so was, in fact, carpooling.<br />
<br />
The case went before the traffic referee, and the officer who issued the ticket even showed up to defend it. Friedman's attorney, Ford Greene, pointed to the "constitutionally vague" correlation between the California vehicle code that defines a person as "natural persons and corporations" and the carpool lane signs that demands cars in the <a href="http://www.autoblog.com/tag/hov+lane/">High Occupancy Vehicle lane</a> be occupied by "two or more persons."<br />
<br />
The jurist wasn't interested in all that "novel" malarkey. Drago said, "Common sense says carrying a sheath of papers in the front seat does not relieve traffic congestion," then declared Friedman guilty. Now, we're not constitutional law scholars, but it's been a while since we heard "common sense" used as the sole litmus test for extracting the intention of a law and assigning guilt - and we wonder if that's the same common sense that was used to declare corporations people in the first place.<br />
<br />
No matter, Friedman said he expected to lose, and that he'll be appealing the ruling within 30 days.<p style="padding:5px;background:#ddd;border:1px solid #ccc;clear:both;"><a href="http://www.autoblog.com/2013/01/12/update-corporations-are-not-people-in-carpool-lanes/">Update: Corporations are not people in carpool lanes</a> originally appeared on <a href="http://www.autoblog.com">Autoblog</a> on Sat, 12 Jan 2013 16:58:00 EST.  Please see our <a href="http://www.weblogsinc.com/feed-terms/">terms for use of feeds</a>.</p><h6 style="clear: both; padding: 8px 0 0 0; height: 2px; font-size: 1px; border: 0; margin: 0; padding: 0;"></h6><a href="http://www.autoblog.com/2013/01/12/update-corporations-are-not-people-in-carpool-lanes/" rel="bookmark" title="Permanent link to this entry">Permalink</a>&nbsp;|&nbsp;<a href="http://www.autoblog.com/forward/20425253/" title="Send this entry to a friend via email">Email this</a>&nbsp;|&nbsp;<a href="http://www.autoblog.com/2013/01/12/update-corporations-are-not-people-in-carpool-lanes/#comments" title="View reader comments on this entry">Comments</a>]]></description><category>california</category><category>carpool</category><category>carpool lane</category><category>citizens united</category><category>corporate personhood</category><category>frank drago</category><category>frieman</category><category>high occupancy vehicle</category><category>hov</category><category>hov lane</category><category>jonathan frieman</category><category>supreme court</category><dc:creator><![CDATA[Jonathon Ramsey]]></dc:creator><pubDate>Sat, 12 Jan 2013 16:58:00 EST</pubDate>
  <comments-url>http://www.autoblog.com/feed/20425253/article-comments.xml</comments-url>
  <rss-url>http://www.autoblog.com/feed/2013/01/12/update-corporations-are-not-people-in-carpool-lanes/20425253/article-detail.xml</rss-url>
  <postid>20425253</postid>
<thumbnail>http://www.blogcdn.com/green.autoblog.com/media/2011/10/california-traffic-sunset_thumbnail.jpg</thumbnail>

</item><item><title><![CDATA[California man using "corporations are people" argument to challenge HOV lane ticket]]></title><link>http://www.autoblog.com/2013/01/07/california-man-using-corporations-are-people-argument-to-chall/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.autoblog.com/2013/01/07/california-man-using-corporations-are-people-argument-to-chall/</guid><comments>http://www.autoblog.com/2013/01/07/california-man-using-corporations-are-people-argument-to-chall/#comments</comments><description><![CDATA[<p>Filed under: <a href="http://www.autoblog.com/category/government-legal/" rel="tag">Government/Legal</a></p><a href="http://www.pacificsun.com/news/local/article_a50eab78-56c0-11e2-b475-001a4bcf6878.html"><img alt="HOV Lane CARB stickers on hybrids"  src="http://www.blogcdn.com/www.autoblog.com/media/2013/01/hov-lane-stickers-on-california-hybrids.jpg" style="margin-top: 4px; margin-bottom: 4px; width: 628px; height: 405px; " /></a><br />
<br />
A driver in San Rafael, California is attempting to appeal a traffic citation for driving alone in a <a href="http://www.autoblog.com/tag/hov+lane/">High Occupancy Vehicle lane</a>. Jonathan Frieman and his attorney, Ford Greene, argue that since Frieman had corporate incorporation papers in his car when he was stopped by an officer, he was actually carpooling at the time. Technically, the state of California's definition of personhood includes both "natural persons and corporations." But Frieman's out to do more than just skirt a $478 traffic ticket with a little fancy legal footwork.<br />
<br />
He's sworn to chase the case all the way to the <a href="http://www.autoblog.com/tag/supreme court/">Supreme Court</a> should the first trial not go his way in an attempt to "expose the impracticality of corporate personhood." If Frieman eventually wins his case, the victory could have serious implications on the US Supreme Court's Citizens United decision.<br />
<br />
While the US legal system has weighed the benefits and drawbacks of corporate personhood for years, the issue became more clear in 2010 when the Supreme Court ruled that restricting corporate political spending violated the First Amendment. Granting corporations constitutional rights implies the entities themselves have personhood.<p style="padding:5px;background:#ddd;border:1px solid #ccc;clear:both;"><a href="http://www.autoblog.com/2013/01/07/california-man-using-corporations-are-people-argument-to-chall/">California man using "corporations are people" argument to challenge HOV lane ticket</a> originally appeared on <a href="http://www.autoblog.com">Autoblog</a> on Mon, 07 Jan 2013 13:30:00 EST.  Please see our <a href="http://www.weblogsinc.com/feed-terms/">terms for use of feeds</a>.</p><h6 style="clear: both; padding: 8px 0 0 0; height: 2px; font-size: 1px; border: 0; margin: 0; padding: 0;"></h6><a href="http://www.autoblog.com/2013/01/07/california-man-using-corporations-are-people-argument-to-chall/" rel="bookmark" title="Permanent link to this entry">Permalink</a>&nbsp;|&nbsp;<a href="http://www.autoblog.com/forward/20418391/" title="Send this entry to a friend via email">Email this</a>&nbsp;|&nbsp;<a href="http://www.autoblog.com/2013/01/07/california-man-using-corporations-are-people-argument-to-chall/#comments" title="View reader comments on this entry">Comments</a>]]></description><category>carpool</category><category>carpool lane</category><category>citizens united</category><category>corporate personhood</category><category>frieman</category><category>high occupancy vehicle</category><category>hov</category><category>hov lane</category><category>jonathan frieman</category><category>supreme court</category><dc:creator><![CDATA[Zach Bowman]]></dc:creator><pubDate>Mon, 07 Jan 2013 13:30:00 EST</pubDate>
  <comments-url>http://www.autoblog.com/feed/20418391/article-comments.xml</comments-url>
  <rss-url>http://www.autoblog.com/feed/2013/01/07/california-man-using-corporations-are-people-argument-to-chall/20418391/article-detail.xml</rss-url>
  <postid>20418391</postid>
<thumbnail>http://www.blogcdn.com/www.autoblog.com/media/2013/01/hov-lane-stickers-on-california-hybrids_thumbnail.jpg</thumbnail>

</item><item><title><![CDATA[Supreme Court refuses to hear Kia appeal]]></title><link>http://www.autoblog.com/2012/06/27/supreme-court-refuses-to-hear-kia-appeal/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.autoblog.com/2012/06/27/supreme-court-refuses-to-hear-kia-appeal/</guid><comments>http://www.autoblog.com/2012/06/27/supreme-court-refuses-to-hear-kia-appeal/#comments</comments><description><![CDATA[<p>Filed under: <a href="http://www.autoblog.com/category/economy/" rel="tag">Budget</a>, <a href="http://www.autoblog.com/category/sedans/" rel="tag">Sedan</a>, <a href="http://www.autoblog.com/category/government-legal/" rel="tag">Government/Legal</a>, <a href="http://www.autoblog.com/kia/" rel="tag">Kia</a></p><a href="http://www.detroitnews.com/article/20120625/AUTO0104/206250392/1148/auto01/Supreme-Court-won-t-hear-appeal-Kia-brakes-suit"><img alt="2000 Kia Sephia - Red, front three-quarter view with palm trees" src="http://www.blogcdn.com/www.autoblog.com/media/2012/06/kiasephiabrakes.jpg" style="margin-top: 4px; margin-bottom: 4px; width: 628px; height: 394px; " /></a><br />
<br />
Almost a year to the day after the second-generation <a href="http://www.autoblog.com/tag/kia+sephia">Kia Sephia</a> was hit with a <a href="http://www.autoblog.com/2011/06/28/kia-hit-with-40m-judgment-in-faulty-seatbelt-death-case/">$40 million jury award</a> in a faulty seatbelt case, the inexpensive Korean is on the wrong side of another court verdict. This time it has to do with the brakes on the 1997-2000 Sephias, which were accused of wearing out too quickly. An owner in Pennsylvania sued, led to a class-action case against <a href="http://www.autoblog.com/kia">Kia</a> and a Pennsylvania court awarding each of the 9,400 plaintiffs $600 in reimbursement, with the judgment totaling some $5.6 million.<br />
<br />
After 11 years of the case and appeals, the U.S. Supreme Court has declined to hear it, rendering the verdict final. That's not the end of Kia's involvement in the matter, though: Sephia owners in other states have also brought suit, with claimants in New Jersey due to receive up to $750 each for the same issue.<p style="padding:5px;background:#ddd;border:1px solid #ccc;clear:both;"><a href="http://www.autoblog.com/2012/06/27/supreme-court-refuses-to-hear-kia-appeal/">Supreme Court refuses to hear Kia appeal</a> originally appeared on <a href="http://www.autoblog.com">Autoblog</a> on Wed, 27 Jun 2012 18:32:00 EST.  Please see our <a href="http://www.weblogsinc.com/feed-terms/">terms for use of feeds</a>.</p><h6 style="clear: both; padding: 8px 0 0 0; height: 2px; font-size: 1px; border: 0; margin: 0; padding: 0;"></h6><a href="http://www.autoblog.com/2012/06/27/supreme-court-refuses-to-hear-kia-appeal/" rel="bookmark" title="Permanent link to this entry">Permalink</a>&nbsp;|&nbsp;<a href="http://www.autoblog.com/forward/20266030/" title="Send this entry to a friend via email">Email this</a>&nbsp;|&nbsp;<a href="http://www.autoblog.com/2012/06/27/supreme-court-refuses-to-hear-kia-appeal/#comments" title="View reader comments on this entry">Comments</a>]]></description><category>kia</category><category>kia lawsuit</category><category>kia sephia</category><category>sephia</category><category>sephia brakes</category><category>supreme court</category><category>us supreme court</category><dc:creator><![CDATA[Jonathon Ramsey]]></dc:creator><pubDate>Wed, 27 Jun 2012 18:32:00 EST</pubDate>
  <comments-url>http://www.autoblog.com/feed/20266030/article-comments.xml</comments-url>
  <rss-url>http://www.autoblog.com/feed/2012/06/27/supreme-court-refuses-to-hear-kia-appeal/20266030/article-detail.xml</rss-url>
  <postid>20266030</postid>
<thumbnail>http://www.blogcdn.com/www.autoblog.com/media/2012/06/kiasephiabrakes_thumbnail.jpg</thumbnail>

</item><item><title><![CDATA[Supreme Court: Feds not allowed to use GPS on autos without warrant]]></title><link>http://www.autoblog.com/2012/01/23/supreme-court-feds-not-allowed-to-use-gps-on-autos-without-warr/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.autoblog.com/2012/01/23/supreme-court-feds-not-allowed-to-use-gps-on-autos-without-warr/</guid><comments>http://www.autoblog.com/2012/01/23/supreme-court-feds-not-allowed-to-use-gps-on-autos-without-warr/#comments</comments><description><![CDATA[<p>Filed under: <a href="http://www.autoblog.com/category/government-legal/" rel="tag">Government/Legal</a>, <a href="http://www.autoblog.com/category/tech/" rel="tag">Technology</a>, <a href="http://www.autoblog.com/category/police-emergency/" rel="tag">Police/Emergency</a></p><a href="http://www.detroitnews.com/article/20120123/AUTO01/201230384/1148/rss25"><img  src="http://www.blogcdn.com/www.autoblog.com/media/2012/01/gyi0056646482-628.jpg" style="margin-top: 4px; margin-bottom: 4px; width: 628px; height: 419px;" /></a><br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.autoblog.com/tag/law enforcement">Law enforcement</a> agencies are now required to obtain a warrant before attaching a <a href="http://www.autoblog.com/tag/gps">GPS device</a> to a vehicle. <em>The Detroit News</em> reports the <a href="http://www.autoblog.com/tag/supreme court">Supreme Court</a> unanimously ruled today that the Justice Department was wrong when it argued that its agents didn't need permission to track private citizens without their knowledge.<br />
<br />
The <a href="http://www.autoblog.com/2011/06/29/supreme-court-to-hear-automotive-gps-tracking-case/">case in question</a> centered around Antoine Jones, a Washington, D.C. nightclub owner and suspected drug dealer. Police installed a GPS device on Jones' wife's <a href="http://www.autoblog.com/jeep/grand cherokee">Jeep Grand Cherokee</a>, which eventually led them to a substantial amount of cocaine. Jones was then sentenced to life in prison.<br />
<br />
But Justice Antonin Scalia wrote that installing the device constitutes a search under the Fourth Amendment. Specifically, Justice Scalia said, "The government physically occupied private property for the purpose of obtaining information."<br />
<br />
In the Jones case, law enforcement agents had obtained the proper warrants to attach the device, but didn't manage to attach it within the 10 days specified in the warrant. The <a href="http://www.autoblog.com/tag/fbi">FBI</a> accumulated 2,000 pages of data over four weeks by tracking the vehicle.<p style="padding:5px;background:#ddd;border:1px solid #ccc;clear:both;"><a href="http://www.autoblog.com/2012/01/23/supreme-court-feds-not-allowed-to-use-gps-on-autos-without-warr/">Supreme Court: Feds not allowed to use GPS on autos without warrant</a> originally appeared on <a href="http://www.autoblog.com">Autoblog</a> on Mon, 23 Jan 2012 16:01:00 EST.  Please see our <a href="http://www.weblogsinc.com/feed-terms/">terms for use of feeds</a>.</p><h6 style="clear: both; padding: 8px 0 0 0; height: 2px; font-size: 1px; border: 0; margin: 0; padding: 0;"></h6><a href="http://www.autoblog.com/2012/01/23/supreme-court-feds-not-allowed-to-use-gps-on-autos-without-warr/" rel="bookmark" title="Permanent link to this entry">Permalink</a>&nbsp;|&nbsp;<a href="http://www.autoblog.com/forward/20154702/" title="Send this entry to a friend via email">Email this</a>&nbsp;|&nbsp;<a href="http://www.autoblog.com/2012/01/23/supreme-court-feds-not-allowed-to-use-gps-on-autos-without-warr/#comments" title="View reader comments on this entry">Comments</a>]]></description><category>antonin scalia</category><category>fbi</category><category>gps</category><category>gps tracking</category><category>justice antonin scalia</category><category>law enforcement</category><category>supreme court</category><category>tracking</category><dc:creator><![CDATA[Zach Bowman]]></dc:creator><pubDate>Mon, 23 Jan 2012 16:01:00 EST</pubDate>
  <comments-url>http://www.autoblog.com/feed/20154702/article-comments.xml</comments-url>
  <rss-url>http://www.autoblog.com/feed/2012/01/23/supreme-court-feds-not-allowed-to-use-gps-on-autos-without-warr/20154702/article-detail.xml</rss-url>
  <postid>20154702</postid>
<thumbnail>http://www.blogcdn.com/www.autoblog.com/media/2012/01/gyi0056646482-628_thumbnail.jpg</thumbnail>

</item><item><title><![CDATA[Federal court upholds forced entry stemming from DUI]]></title><link>http://www.autoblog.com/2011/11/16/federal-court-upholds-forced-entry-stemming-from-dui/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.autoblog.com/2011/11/16/federal-court-upholds-forced-entry-stemming-from-dui/</guid><comments>http://www.autoblog.com/2011/11/16/federal-court-upholds-forced-entry-stemming-from-dui/#comments</comments><description><![CDATA[<p>Filed under: <a href="http://www.autoblog.com/category/government-legal/" rel="tag">Government/Legal</a>, <a href="http://www.autoblog.com/category/safety/" rel="tag">Safety</a></p><img height="419"  src="http://www.blogcdn.com/www.autoblog.com/media/2011/11/gov0079.jpg-opt.jpg" vspace="4" width="628" /><br />
<br />
The <a href="http://www.autoblog.com/tag/supreme%20court/">Supreme Court</a> has long maintained that police can not forcibly enter someone's home without a warrant on the suspicion of driving under the influence, but a federal appeals court recently upheld a case in which a Virginia officer did just that.<br />
<br />
On October 3, 2004, Alan J. Cilman had dinner at a local restaurant where he drank and watched a football game. When he left the establishment, officer M.A. Reeves saw Cilman take off at a high rate of speed and proceeded to follow the sports fan to his home. Reeves claims that Cilman ran a stop sign, didn't use his turning indicators and accelerated quickly from each turn.<br />
<br />
It's unclear whether Reeves actually activated his cruiser's lights while following Cilman. What is clear is that Cilman made it to his home and quickly walked to his front door while Reeves told him to stop, but did not say that he was under arrest. Cilman then locked his door and told the officer to get off of his property. Reeves called for back up, proceeded to kick in Cilman's door and arrested him for being drunk in public and evasion without force. Those charges were later dropped when a U.S. district court found that entering Cilman's property without a warrant was a violation of his Fourth Amendment rights.<br />
<br />
Reeves then proceeded to appeal the decision. Virginia state law declares that if he were later found guilty of a another constitutional infringement, he would be removed from duty. The appellate judges decided that there is no precedent protecting someone from warrantless entry in a case like Cilman's. The court reversed every decision in Cilman's favor and dismissed the case entirely.<p style="padding:5px;background:#ddd;border:1px solid #ccc;clear:both;"><a href="http://www.autoblog.com/2011/11/16/federal-court-upholds-forced-entry-stemming-from-dui/">Federal court upholds forced entry stemming from DUI</a> originally appeared on <a href="http://www.autoblog.com">Autoblog</a> on Wed, 16 Nov 2011 08:30:00 EST.  Please see our <a href="http://www.weblogsinc.com/feed-terms/">terms for use of feeds</a>.</p><h6 style="clear: both; padding: 8px 0 0 0; height: 2px; font-size: 1px; border: 0; margin: 0; padding: 0;"></h6><a href="http://www.autoblog.com/2011/11/16/federal-court-upholds-forced-entry-stemming-from-dui/" rel="bookmark" title="Permanent link to this entry">Permalink</a>&nbsp;|&nbsp;<a href="http://www.autoblog.com/forward/20106771/" title="Send this entry to a friend via email">Email this</a>&nbsp;|&nbsp;<a href="http://www.autoblog.com/2011/11/16/federal-court-upholds-forced-entry-stemming-from-dui/#comments" title="View reader comments on this entry">Comments</a>]]></description><category>driving under the influence</category><category>dui</category><category>supreme court</category><category>virginia</category><category>warrantless entry</category><category>warrantless search</category><dc:creator><![CDATA[Zach Bowman]]></dc:creator><pubDate>Wed, 16 Nov 2011 08:30:00 EST</pubDate>
  <comments-url>http://www.autoblog.com/feed/20106771/article-comments.xml</comments-url>
  <rss-url>http://www.autoblog.com/feed/2011/11/16/federal-court-upholds-forced-entry-stemming-from-dui/20106771/article-detail.xml</rss-url>
  <postid>20106771</postid>
<thumbnail>http://www.blogcdn.com/www.autoblog.com/media/2011/11/gov0079.jpg-opt_thumbnail.jpg</thumbnail>

</item><item><title><![CDATA[Massachusetts Supreme Court upholds policy of charging $70 fee to innocent motorists]]></title><link>http://www.autoblog.com/2011/09/24/mass-supreme-court-upholds-charging-75-fee-to-innocent-motoris/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.autoblog.com/2011/09/24/mass-supreme-court-upholds-charging-75-fee-to-innocent-motoris/</guid><comments>http://www.autoblog.com/2011/09/24/mass-supreme-court-upholds-charging-75-fee-to-innocent-motoris/#comments</comments><description><![CDATA[<p>Filed under: <a href="http://www.autoblog.com/category/government-legal/" rel="tag">Government/Legal</a></p><a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/redjar/114209395/in/photostream/"><img alt="Pulled over" src="http://www.blogcdn.com/www.autoblog.com/media/2011/09/pulledoverbyredjar.jpg" style="margin-top: 4px; margin-bottom: 4px; width: 628px; height: 471px;" /></a><br />
<br />
Getting a ticket can ruin even the best of days, but at least American motorists have the ability to fight moving violations in court. Challenging a ticket at least gives drivers a shot at avoiding or reducing fines and/or points charged to their records.<br />
<br />
In Massachusetts, however, a new state Supreme Court ruling means drivers have to pay, win or lose. <a href="http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/35/3592.asp">The Newspaper</a> details the case of Ralph Sullivan, who was charged $70 in non-refundable fees even after he successfully fought a lane violation ticket ($20 for appealing the summons to a clerk, then another $50 to get the case in front of a district court judge). Sullivan argued to the Massachusetts Supreme Court that the policy violates the Equal Protection clause of the Constitution, as motorists are saddled with fees that offenders in more serious cases are not required to pay. The court disagreed and ruled against Sullivan.<br />
<br />
In the ruling, Justice Ralph D. Gants writes, "Where the legislature provides greater process that imposes greater demands on the resources of the District Court, it is rational for the legislature to impose filing fees, waivable where a litigant is indigent, to offset part of the additional cost of these judicial proceedings."<br />
<br />
Yeah, we get it. The courts are busy and they're expensive to run, so the $3,678,620 Massachusetts courts received as a result of fines in 2010 is needed to keep the doors open. We're of the opinion that anyone found not guilty should never have been pulled over in the first place, so the fine is levied as punishment for no crime committed. Isn't wasting half a day in court punishment enough?<p style="padding:5px;background:#ddd;border:1px solid #ccc;clear:both;"><a href="http://www.autoblog.com/2011/09/24/mass-supreme-court-upholds-charging-75-fee-to-innocent-motoris/">Massachusetts Supreme Court upholds policy of charging $70 fee to innocent motorists</a> originally appeared on <a href="http://www.autoblog.com">Autoblog</a> on Sat, 24 Sep 2011 20:01:00 EST.  Please see our <a href="http://www.weblogsinc.com/feed-terms/">terms for use of feeds</a>.</p><h6 style="clear: both; padding: 8px 0 0 0; height: 2px; font-size: 1px; border: 0; margin: 0; padding: 0;"></h6><a href="http://www.autoblog.com/2011/09/24/mass-supreme-court-upholds-charging-75-fee-to-innocent-motoris/" rel="bookmark" title="Permanent link to this entry">Permalink</a>&nbsp;|&nbsp;<a href="http://www.autoblog.com/forward/20050091/" title="Send this entry to a friend via email">Email this</a>&nbsp;|&nbsp;<a href="http://www.autoblog.com/2011/09/24/mass-supreme-court-upholds-charging-75-fee-to-innocent-motoris/#comments" title="View reader comments on this entry">Comments</a>]]></description><category>fine</category><category>Massachusetts</category><category>speeding</category><category>supreme court</category><category>ticket</category><dc:creator><![CDATA[Chris Shunk]]></dc:creator><pubDate>Sat, 24 Sep 2011 20:01:00 EST</pubDate>
  <comments-url>http://www.autoblog.com/feed/20050091/article-comments.xml</comments-url>
  <rss-url>http://www.autoblog.com/feed/2011/09/24/mass-supreme-court-upholds-charging-75-fee-to-innocent-motoris/20050091/article-detail.xml</rss-url>
  <postid>20050091</postid>
<thumbnail>http://www.blogcdn.com/www.autoblog.com/media/2011/09/pulledoverbyredjar_thumbnail.jpg</thumbnail>

</item><item><title><![CDATA[Supreme Court to hear automotive GPS tracking case]]></title><link>http://www.autoblog.com/2011/06/29/supreme-court-to-hear-automotive-gps-tracking-case/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.autoblog.com/2011/06/29/supreme-court-to-hear-automotive-gps-tracking-case/</guid><comments>http://www.autoblog.com/2011/06/29/supreme-court-to-hear-automotive-gps-tracking-case/#comments</comments><description><![CDATA[<p>Filed under: <a href="http://www.autoblog.com/category/etc/" rel="tag">Etc.</a>, <a href="http://www.autoblog.com/category/government-legal/" rel="tag">Government/Legal</a>, <a href="http://www.autoblog.com/category/police-emergency/" rel="tag">Police/Emergency</a></p><img alt="United States Supreme Court"  src="http://www.blogcdn.com/www.autoblog.com/media/2011/06/gyi0057536360.jpg" style="border-top-width: 0px; border-right-width: 0px; border-bottom-width: 0px; border-left-width: 0px; border-top-style: solid; border-right-style: solid; border-bottom-style: solid; border-left-style: solid; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 4px; margin-bottom: 4px; " /><br />
<br />
The <a href="http://www.autoblog.com/tag/supreme court">Supreme Court</a> is set to rule on whether or not law enforcement officers need a warrant in order to track a suspect's vehicle with a <a href="http://www.autoblog.com/tag/gps">GPS</a> device. The case centers around Antoine Jones, whose vehicle was bugged for a month without his consent or a go-ahead from the justice department. The police have argued that such tracking shouldn't require a warrant because the location of Jones' vehicle on public streets is public knowledge. Advocates arguing against that stance say that the comprehensive surveillance constitutes an unjust invasion of privacy.<br />
<br />
No one is disputing the fact that Jones was, in fact, selling cocaine when his vehicle was monitored.<br />
<br />
Lower courts have sided with Jones' attorneys on the privacy issue in the past, though there is a precedent for allowing evidence obtained through warrantless <a href="http://www.autoblog.com/tag/gps%20tracking">GPS tracking</a> to be upheld. The issue seems to be exactly how long law enforcement continues the tracking. Either way, law enforcement, prosecution and defense attorneys will all have a close eye on the outcome of the Jones case.<p style="padding:5px;background:#ddd;border:1px solid #ccc;clear:both;"><a href="http://www.autoblog.com/2011/06/29/supreme-court-to-hear-automotive-gps-tracking-case/">Supreme Court to hear automotive GPS tracking case</a> originally appeared on <a href="http://www.autoblog.com">Autoblog</a> on Wed, 29 Jun 2011 14:29:00 EST.  Please see our <a href="http://www.weblogsinc.com/feed-terms/">terms for use of feeds</a>.</p><h6 style="clear: both; padding: 8px 0 0 0; height: 2px; font-size: 1px; border: 0; margin: 0; padding: 0;"></h6><a href="http://www.autoblog.com/2011/06/29/supreme-court-to-hear-automotive-gps-tracking-case/" rel="bookmark" title="Permanent link to this entry">Permalink</a>&nbsp;|&nbsp;<a href="http://www.autoblog.com/forward/19979447/" title="Send this entry to a friend via email">Email this</a>&nbsp;|&nbsp;<a href="http://www.autoblog.com/2011/06/29/supreme-court-to-hear-automotive-gps-tracking-case/#comments" title="View reader comments on this entry">Comments</a>]]></description><category>gps</category><category>gps tracking</category><category>supreme court</category><dc:creator><![CDATA[Zach Bowman]]></dc:creator><pubDate>Wed, 29 Jun 2011 14:29:00 EST</pubDate>
  <comments-url>http://www.autoblog.com/feed/19979447/article-comments.xml</comments-url>
  <rss-url>http://www.autoblog.com/feed/2011/06/29/supreme-court-to-hear-automotive-gps-tracking-case/19979447/article-detail.xml</rss-url>
  <postid>19979447</postid>
<thumbnail>http://www.blogcdn.com/www.autoblog.com/media/2011/06/gyi0057536360_thumbnail.jpg</thumbnail>

</item><item><title><![CDATA[Supreme Court strikes down Bloomberg's hybrid taxi plan for NYC]]></title><link>http://www.autoblog.com/2011/03/03/supreme-court-strikes-down-bloombergs-hybrid-taxi-plan-for-nyc/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.autoblog.com/2011/03/03/supreme-court-strikes-down-bloombergs-hybrid-taxi-plan-for-nyc/</guid><comments>http://www.autoblog.com/2011/03/03/supreme-court-strikes-down-bloombergs-hybrid-taxi-plan-for-nyc/#comments</comments><description><![CDATA[<p>Filed under: <a href="http://www.autoblog.com/category/etc/" rel="tag">Etc.</a>, <a href="http://www.autoblog.com/category/government-legal/" rel="tag">Government/Legal</a></p><a href="http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/red_light_for_eco_taxi_bid_LOUFCV9izhb6B82qa998bI"><img alt="New York City hybrid taxi" src="http://www.blogcdn.com/www.autoblog.com/media/2011/03/new-york-city-hybrid-taxi-opt.jpg" style="border-style: solid; border-width: 0px; margin: 4px 0px;" /></a><br />
<br />
New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg has fought long and hard to uphold a local law requiring all city cab companies to replace their gas-guzzling <a href="http://www.autoblog.com/make/ford/">Ford</a> Crown Victoria sedans with more efficient livery vehicles. A noble goal, no doubt, but the Supreme Court is having none of it.<br />
<br />
<em>The New York Post</em> reports that the highest court in the land refused to hear the case after four years of battles in the lower courts, giving the victory to the Metropolitan Taxicab Board of Trade. The court ruled that federal agencies have the sole right to regulate emissions and efficiency, not the mayor of one town - even if it is the City That Never Sleeps.<br />
<br />
When the Supreme Court swings its gavel, there usually isn't another shot, but that likely won't stop Mayor Bloomberg from lobbying Congress to change the rules. The mayor said that local governments are the ones dealing with climate change and energy policy, adding "the federal government seems unable to address those issues."<br />
<br />
While the city of New York appears to have lost the efficiency war, the Big Apple can still feel good about the fact that some 4,400 of the 13,237 cabs on its streets are hybrids. And if gas prices continue to jump, we're thinking many of the other 8,000 cabs will follow suit.<br />
<br />
[Source: <a href="http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/red_light_for_eco_taxi_bid_LOUFCV9izhb6B82qa998bI">New York Post</a> | Image: Chris Hondros/Getty]<p style="padding:5px;background:#ddd;border:1px solid #ccc;clear:both;"><a href="http://www.autoblog.com/2011/03/03/supreme-court-strikes-down-bloombergs-hybrid-taxi-plan-for-nyc/">Supreme Court strikes down Bloomberg's hybrid taxi plan for NYC</a> originally appeared on <a href="http://www.autoblog.com">Autoblog</a> on Thu, 03 Mar 2011 17:21:00 EST.  Please see our <a href="http://www.weblogsinc.com/feed-terms/">terms for use of feeds</a>.</p><h6 style="clear: both; padding: 8px 0 0 0; height: 2px; font-size: 1px; border: 0; margin: 0; padding: 0;"></h6><a href=http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/red_light_for_eco_taxi_bid_LOUFCV9izhb6B82qa998bI>Read</a>&nbsp;|&nbsp;<a href="http://www.autoblog.com/2011/03/03/supreme-court-strikes-down-bloombergs-hybrid-taxi-plan-for-nyc/" rel="bookmark" title="Permanent link to this entry">Permalink</a>&nbsp;|&nbsp;<a href="http://www.autoblog.com/forward/19864273/" title="Send this entry to a friend via email">Email this</a>&nbsp;|&nbsp;<a href="http://www.autoblog.com/2011/03/03/supreme-court-strikes-down-bloombergs-hybrid-taxi-plan-for-nyc/#comments" title="View reader comments on this entry">Comments</a>]]></description><category>green</category><category>hybrid taxi</category><category>metropolitain taxicab board of trade</category><category>michael bloomberg</category><category>new york city</category><category>supreme court</category><category>taxi</category><dc:creator><![CDATA[Chris Shunk]]></dc:creator><pubDate>Thu, 03 Mar 2011 17:21:00 EST</pubDate>
  <comments-url>http://www.autoblog.com/feed/19864273/article-comments.xml</comments-url>
  <rss-url>http://www.autoblog.com/feed/2011/03/03/supreme-court-strikes-down-bloombergs-hybrid-taxi-plan-for-nyc/19864273/article-detail.xml</rss-url>
  <postid>19864273</postid>
<thumbnail>http://www.blogcdn.com/www.autoblog.com/media/2011/03/new-york-city-hybrid-taxi-opt_thumbnail.jpg</thumbnail>

</item><item><title><![CDATA[Report: Supreme Court clears path for additional seatbelt lawsuits]]></title><link>http://www.autoblog.com/2011/02/24/report-supreme-court-clears-path-for-additional-seatbelt-lawsui/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.autoblog.com/2011/02/24/report-supreme-court-clears-path-for-additional-seatbelt-lawsui/</guid><comments>http://www.autoblog.com/2011/02/24/report-supreme-court-clears-path-for-additional-seatbelt-lawsui/#comments</comments><description><![CDATA[<p>Filed under: <a href="http://www.autoblog.com/category/etc/" rel="tag">Etc.</a>, <a href="http://www.autoblog.com/category/government-legal/" rel="tag">Government/Legal</a>, <a href="http://www.autoblog.com/category/safety/" rel="tag">Safety</a></p><div>
	<img alt="1993 Mazda MPV" src="http://www.blogcdn.com/www.autoblog.com/media/2011/02/mazdampv.jpg" style="border-width: 0px; border-style: solid; margin: 4px 0px;" /><br />
	<br />
	The United States Supreme Court has unanimously ruled that automakers can be sued over product-liability complaints, regardless of whether or not the vehicles in question meet federal motor vehicle safety standards in place at the time of manufacture. The decision has been handed down in the case of <a href="http://topics.law.cornell.edu/supct/cert/08-1314">Williamson vs. Mazda Motor of America</a>, in which the family of a woman who perished in a crash involving a 1993 MPV (pictured) sued the automaker, arguing that she would have survived had there been a three-point belt available for her seating position.<br />
	<br />
	The 2002 accident that claimed the life of Thanh Williamson was a head-on crash with another vehicle, and the other occupants of Williamson's vehicle with three-point belts survived. Ms. Williamson's family brought suit in California, contending that Mazda should have provided lap-and-shoulder belts, though it wasn't required by law at the time the vehicle was built and sold. Despite Mazda's compliance with vehicle safety standards, the ruling makes automakers more prone to lawsuits over issues deemed negligent by consumers.<br />
	<br />
	Wednesday's ruling opens the door for a reinterpretation of the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geier_v._American_Honda_Company">Geier vs. American Honda Motor Company</a> decision in 2000 that many lower courts read as a prohibition of state-level liability lawsuits pertaining to products ranging from electronics to vehicles. The Federal regulations in place for these products have been seen as precluding any contradictory state statutes, but with this latest decision, the landscape may change significantly, and not just for automobiles.<br />
	<br />
	Reaction to this decision from the stock market was not positive, with Ford and other car companies down one or two percent. Mazda says the ruling is disappointing, but doesn't assign liability, and the company will defend itself.<br />
	<br />
	[Source: <a href="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703775704576162273193408118.html">The Wall Street Journal</a> | Photo: Wikimedia - IFCAR CC 2.0]</div><p style="padding:5px;background:#ddd;border:1px solid #ccc;clear:both;"><a href="http://www.autoblog.com/2011/02/24/report-supreme-court-clears-path-for-additional-seatbelt-lawsui/">Report: Supreme Court clears path for additional seatbelt lawsuits</a> originally appeared on <a href="http://www.autoblog.com">Autoblog</a> on Thu, 24 Feb 2011 16:02:00 EST.  Please see our <a href="http://www.weblogsinc.com/feed-terms/">terms for use of feeds</a>.</p><h6 style="clear: both; padding: 8px 0 0 0; height: 2px; font-size: 1px; border: 0; margin: 0; padding: 0;"></h6><a href=http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703775704576162273193408118.html>Read</a>&nbsp;|&nbsp;<a href="http://www.autoblog.com/2011/02/24/report-supreme-court-clears-path-for-additional-seatbelt-lawsui/" rel="bookmark" title="Permanent link to this entry">Permalink</a>&nbsp;|&nbsp;<a href="http://www.autoblog.com/forward/19856854/" title="Send this entry to a friend via email">Email this</a>&nbsp;|&nbsp;<a href="http://www.autoblog.com/2011/02/24/report-supreme-court-clears-path-for-additional-seatbelt-lawsui/#comments" title="View reader comments on this entry">Comments</a>]]></description><category>mazda seatbelt</category><category>mazda supreme court</category><category>seatbelt supreme courty</category><category>supreme court</category><category>thanh williamson</category><category>williamson v mazda motor america</category><dc:creator><![CDATA[Dan Roth]]></dc:creator><pubDate>Thu, 24 Feb 2011 16:02:00 EST</pubDate>
  <comments-url>http://www.autoblog.com/feed/19856854/article-comments.xml</comments-url>
  <rss-url>http://www.autoblog.com/feed/2011/02/24/report-supreme-court-clears-path-for-additional-seatbelt-lawsui/19856854/article-detail.xml</rss-url>
  <postid>19856854</postid>
<thumbnail>http://www.blogcdn.com/www.autoblog.com/media/2011/02/mazdampv_thumbnail.jpg</thumbnail>

</item><item><title><![CDATA[Mazda seatbelt lawsuit headed to U.S. Supreme Court]]></title><link>http://www.autoblog.com/2010/05/25/mazda-seatbelt-lawsuit-headed-to-u-s-supreme-court/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.autoblog.com/2010/05/25/mazda-seatbelt-lawsuit-headed-to-u-s-supreme-court/</guid><comments>http://www.autoblog.com/2010/05/25/mazda-seatbelt-lawsuit-headed-to-u-s-supreme-court/#comments</comments><description><![CDATA[<p>Filed under: <a href="http://www.autoblog.com/category/government-legal/" rel="tag">Government/Legal</a>, <a href="http://www.autoblog.com/category/safety/" rel="tag">Safety</a></p><img vspace="4" hspace="0" border="1" alt="" src="http://www.blogcdn.com/www.autoblog.com/media/2010/05/supreme-court.jpg" /><br />
<br />
The <a href="http://www.autoblog.com/2009/06/08/breaking-supreme-court-stays-sales-of-chrysler-to-fiat/">U.S. Supreme Court</a> is set to rule on whether or not current federal regulations protect automakers from being sued under state product liability laws. According to <em>The Wall Street Journal,</em> justices will examine a California lawsuit that claims that <a href="http://www.autoblog.com/make/mazda/">Mazda</a> should be held responsible for the death of a passenger in a 1993 MPV minivan. The passenger was riding in the middle seat, wearing a lap belt, when an accident occurred. The belt caused serious internal injuries that eventually led to death. The plaintiff's argument is that by not installing three-point seatbelts in the center row of the vehicle, Mazda failed to do everything in its power to protect the occupants of the vehicle. <br />
<br />
It's important to note that three-point seatbelts didn't become a legal requirement in all seating positions until 2007. Before that time, regulations established in 1989 said that three-point belts were only required in outboard seats, so Mazda built the MPV to conform to the laws in place when the vehicle was built and sold. <br />
<br />
The lawsuit was originally rejected after Mazda pointed to a 2000 Supreme Court case in which Honda was unsuccessfully sued after injuries occurred in a 1987 <a href="http://www.autoblog.com/honda/accord">Honda Accord</a>. In that case, the plaintiff said that Honda was responsible because it did not install airbags in the vehicle. <br />
<br />
The Supreme Court will hear the case in the 2010-2011 term starting in October. <br />
<br />
[Sources: <a href="http://online.wsj.com/article/BT-CO-20100524-707389.html?mod=WSJ_latestheadlines">The Wall Street Journal</a>, <a href="http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-05-24/mazda-passenger-seatbelt-suit-gets-u-s-supreme-court-review.html">Bloomberg</a> | Image: Chip Somodevilla/Getty]<p style="padding:5px;background:#ddd;border:1px solid #ccc;clear:both;"><a href="http://www.autoblog.com/2010/05/25/mazda-seatbelt-lawsuit-headed-to-u-s-supreme-court/">Mazda seatbelt lawsuit headed to U.S. Supreme Court</a> originally appeared on <a href="http://www.autoblog.com">Autoblog</a> on Tue, 25 May 2010 16:01:00 EST.  Please see our <a href="http://www.weblogsinc.com/feed-terms/">terms for use of feeds</a>.</p><h6 style="clear: both; padding: 8px 0 0 0; height: 2px; font-size: 1px; border: 0; margin: 0; padding: 0;"></h6><a href="http://www.autoblog.com/2010/05/25/mazda-seatbelt-lawsuit-headed-to-u-s-supreme-court/" rel="bookmark" title="Permanent link to this entry">Permalink</a>&nbsp;|&nbsp;<a href="http://www.autoblog.com/forward/19490305/" title="Send this entry to a friend via email">Email this</a>&nbsp;|&nbsp;<a href="http://www.autoblog.com/2010/05/25/mazda-seatbelt-lawsuit-headed-to-u-s-supreme-court/#comments" title="View reader comments on this entry">Comments</a>]]></description><category>Accord</category><category>Honda</category><category>Honda Accord</category><category>HondaAccord</category><category>lawsuit</category><category>Mazda</category><category>Mazda Lawsuit</category><category>Mazda MPV</category><category>MazdaLawsuit</category><category>MazdaMpv</category><category>seat belt</category><category>seat belt law</category><category>seatbelt</category><category>seatbelt law</category><category>SeatbeltLaw</category><category>Supreme Court</category><category>SupremeCourt</category><category>U.S. Supreme court</category><category>U.s.SupremeCourt</category><category>US Supreme Court</category><category>UsSupremeCourt</category><dc:creator><![CDATA[Zach Bowman]]></dc:creator><pubDate>Tue, 25 May 2010 16:01:00 EST</pubDate>
  <comments-url>http://www.autoblog.com/feed/19490305/article-comments.xml</comments-url>
  <rss-url>http://www.autoblog.com/feed/2010/05/25/mazda-seatbelt-lawsuit-headed-to-u-s-supreme-court/19490305/article-detail.xml</rss-url>
  <postid>19490305</postid>
<thumbnail>http://www.blogcdn.com/www.autoblog.com/media/2010/05/supreme-court_thumbnail.jpg</thumbnail>

</item><item><title><![CDATA[REPORT: Ford loses appeal in rollover case, must pay $55M]]></title><link>http://www.autoblog.com/2009/12/01/ford-loses-appeal-in-roll-over-case-must-pay-55m/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.autoblog.com/2009/12/01/ford-loses-appeal-in-roll-over-case-must-pay-55m/</guid><comments>http://www.autoblog.com/2009/12/01/ford-loses-appeal-in-roll-over-case-must-pay-55m/#comments</comments><description><![CDATA[<p>Filed under: <a href="http://www.autoblog.com/category/suvs/" rel="tag">SUV</a>, <a href="http://www.autoblog.com/category/government-legal/" rel="tag">Government/Legal</a>, <a href="http://www.autoblog.com/category/safety/" rel="tag">Safety</a>, <a href="http://www.autoblog.com/ford/" rel="tag">Ford</a></p><a href="http://www.detnews.com/article/20091130/AUTO01/911300388/1148/Supreme-Court-lets-stand-award-in-Ford-SUV-lawsuit"><img hspace="0" vspace="4" border="1" src="http://www.blogcdn.com/www.autoblog.com/media/2009/12/1997fordexplorerside4.jpg" alt="" /></a><br />
<br />
According to <em>The Detroit News</em>, the Supreme Court has let stand a ruling that Ford Motor Company is at fault for a 2002 rollover crash involving a 1997 Ford Explorer and the Dearborn, MI-based automaker must pay $55 million in punitive damages. Benetta Buell-Wilson's Explorer <a href="http://www.autoblog.com/2007/05/15/ford-rollover-settlement-under-re-review/">rolled over four-and-a-half times</a> after she swerved to avoid debris. When the roof collapsed on her neck, it severed her spinal cord and left her paralyzed.<br />
<br />
Ford unsuccessfully argued that it shouldn't be punished due to the fact that the Explorer complied with federal safety standards when it was built. Buell-Wilson was originally awarded $369 million in damages, but a pair of California courts cut down the total value of damages to $82.6 million.<br />
<br />
[Source: <a href="http://www.detnews.com/article/20091130/AUTO01/911300388/1148/Supreme-Court-lets-stand-award-in-Ford-SUV-lawsuit">The Detroit News</a>]<p style="padding:5px;background:#ddd;border:1px solid #ccc;clear:both;"><a href="http://www.autoblog.com/2009/12/01/ford-loses-appeal-in-roll-over-case-must-pay-55m/">REPORT: Ford loses appeal in rollover case, must pay $55M</a> originally appeared on <a href="http://www.autoblog.com">Autoblog</a> on Tue, 01 Dec 2009 09:29:00 EST.  Please see our <a href="http://www.weblogsinc.com/feed-terms/">terms for use of feeds</a>.</p><h6 style="clear: both; padding: 8px 0 0 0; height: 2px; font-size: 1px; border: 0; margin: 0; padding: 0;"></h6><a href=http://www.detnews.com/article/20091130/AUTO01/911300388/1148/Supreme-Court-lets-stand-award-in-Ford-SUV-lawsuit>Read</a>&nbsp;|&nbsp;<a href="http://www.autoblog.com/2009/12/01/ford-loses-appeal-in-roll-over-case-must-pay-55m/" rel="bookmark" title="Permanent link to this entry">Permalink</a>&nbsp;|&nbsp;<a href="http://www.autoblog.com/forward/19259037/" title="Send this entry to a friend via email">Email this</a>&nbsp;|&nbsp;<a href="http://www.autoblog.com/2009/12/01/ford-loses-appeal-in-roll-over-case-must-pay-55m/#comments" title="View reader comments on this entry">Comments</a>]]></description><category>benetta buell-wilson</category><category>BenettaBuell-wilson</category><category>ford</category><category>ford explorer</category><category>FordExplorer</category><category>rollover</category><category>supreme court</category><category>SupremeCourt</category><dc:creator><![CDATA[Chris Shunk]]></dc:creator><pubDate>Tue, 01 Dec 2009 09:29:00 EST</pubDate>
  <comments-url>http://www.autoblog.com/feed/19259037/article-comments.xml</comments-url>
  <rss-url>http://www.autoblog.com/feed/2009/12/01/ford-loses-appeal-in-roll-over-case-must-pay-55m/19259037/article-detail.xml</rss-url>
  <postid>19259037</postid>
<thumbnail>http://www.blogcdn.com/www.autoblog.com/media/2009/12/1997fordexplorerside4_thumbnail.jpg</thumbnail>

</item><item><title><![CDATA[BREAKING: Supreme Court clears the way for Chrysler-Fiat deal]]></title><link>http://www.autoblog.com/2009/06/09/breaking-supreme-court-clears-the-way-for-chrysler-fiat-deal/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.autoblog.com/2009/06/09/breaking-supreme-court-clears-the-way-for-chrysler-fiat-deal/</guid><comments>http://www.autoblog.com/2009/06/09/breaking-supreme-court-clears-the-way-for-chrysler-fiat-deal/#comments</comments><description><![CDATA[<p>Filed under: <a href="http://www.autoblog.com/category/government-legal/" rel="tag">Government/Legal</a>, <a href="http://www.autoblog.com/chrysler/" rel="tag">Chrysler</a>, <a href="http://www.autoblog.com/fiat/" rel="tag">Fiat</a></p><a href="http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&amp;sid=aYPU_uhbGzA8"><img vspace="4" hspace="4" border="1" src="http://www.blogcdn.com/www.autoblog.com/media/2009/06/chry_supct_indi.jpg" alt="" /></a><br /><br />With the <a href="http://www.autoblog.com/2009/06/08/breaking-supreme-court-stays-sales-of-chrysler-to-fiat/">temporary stay issued yesterday</a> lifted, the Supreme Court will allow the government-backed sale of Chrysler to Fiat. The high court rejected <a href="http://www.autoblog.com/2009/06/08/chryslers-novel-bankruptcy-taken-to-the-supreme-court-by-unha/">the request from Indiana pension funds and consumer advocates to delay the deal</a>, clearing the way for the sale and setting a precedent for General Motors in its own bankruptcy proceedings.<br /><br />[Source: <a href="http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&amp;sid=aYPU_uhbGzA8">Bloomberg</a> | Image: Getty]<p style="padding:5px;background:#ddd;border:1px solid #ccc;clear:both;"><a href="http://www.autoblog.com/2009/06/09/breaking-supreme-court-clears-the-way-for-chrysler-fiat-deal/">BREAKING: Supreme Court clears the way for Chrysler-Fiat deal</a> originally appeared on <a href="http://www.autoblog.com">Autoblog</a> on Tue, 09 Jun 2009 19:40:00 EST.  Please see our <a href="http://www.weblogsinc.com/feed-terms/">terms for use of feeds</a>.</p><h6 style="clear: both; padding: 8px 0 0 0; height: 2px; font-size: 1px; border: 0; margin: 0; padding: 0;"></h6><a href=http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&amp;sid=aYPU_uhbGzA8>Read</a>&nbsp;|&nbsp;<a href="http://www.autoblog.com/2009/06/09/breaking-supreme-court-clears-the-way-for-chrysler-fiat-deal/" rel="bookmark" title="Permanent link to this entry">Permalink</a>&nbsp;|&nbsp;<a href="http://www.autoblog.com/forward/19062685/" title="Send this entry to a friend via email">Email this</a>&nbsp;|&nbsp;<a href="http://www.autoblog.com/2009/06/09/breaking-supreme-court-clears-the-way-for-chrysler-fiat-deal/#comments" title="View reader comments on this entry">Comments</a>]]></description><category>bankruptcy</category><category>breaking</category><category>chrysler</category><category>fiat</category><category>supreme court</category><category>SupremeCourt</category><dc:creator><![CDATA[Damon Lavrinc]]></dc:creator><pubDate>Tue, 09 Jun 2009 19:40:00 EST</pubDate>
  <comments-url>http://www.autoblog.com/feed/19062685/article-comments.xml</comments-url>
  <rss-url>http://www.autoblog.com/feed/2009/06/09/breaking-supreme-court-clears-the-way-for-chrysler-fiat-deal/19062685/article-detail.xml</rss-url>
  <postid>19062685</postid>
<thumbnail>http://www.blogcdn.com/www.autoblog.com/media/2009/06/chry_supct_indi_thumbnail.jpg</thumbnail>

</item><item><title><![CDATA[Fiat to Chrysler: "We won't walk away"]]></title><link>http://www.autoblog.com/2009/06/09/fiat-to-chrysler-we-wont-walk-away/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.autoblog.com/2009/06/09/fiat-to-chrysler-we-wont-walk-away/</guid><comments>http://www.autoblog.com/2009/06/09/fiat-to-chrysler-we-wont-walk-away/#comments</comments><description><![CDATA[<p>Filed under: <a href="http://www.autoblog.com/category/government-legal/" rel="tag">Government/Legal</a>, <a href="http://www.autoblog.com/chrysler/" rel="tag">Chrysler</a>, <a href="http://www.autoblog.com/fiat/" rel="tag">Fiat</a></p><a href="http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090609/ap_on_bi_ge/eu_italy_fiat_chrysler"><img vspace="4" hspace="4" border="1" alt="" src="http://www.blogcdn.com/www.autoblog.com/media/2009/06/fiat_remain_chyrs.jpg" /></a><br /><br />In spite of pleas from the White House and the Justice Department, the Supreme Court yesterday <a href="http://www.autoblog.com/2009/06/08/breaking-supreme-court-stays-sales-of-chrysler-to-fiat/">put a hold on Chrysler's sale to Fiat</a>. On one side are Indiana pension funds who want to protect their investment. On the other side are Chrysler and Fiat, who want to protect Chrysler's very existence, and the government which wants to protect the economy and jobs. In between all of that is the law. <br /><br />Chrysler was given until June 15 to arrange its affairs or Fiat had the right to walk away from the deal, which would mean almost certain liquidation for the Pentastar. A Fiat spokesman, however, has come out today and said "Fiat won't walk away from Chrysler."<br /><br />No reason was given for Fiat's new commitment, but in addition to the fact that Fiat intimately knows how long it takes to get a stumbling business through necessary hurdles, this is probably the company's best near-term chance to get into the U.S. market with a whole lot of helping hands. For the time being, everyone now waits to see what the Supreme Court will do with the case. <em>Thanks for the tip, Dave!</em><br /><br />[Source: <a href="http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090609/ap_on_bi_ge/eu_italy_fiat_chrysler">Yahoo!</a>]<p style="padding:5px;background:#ddd;border:1px solid #ccc;clear:both;"><a href="http://www.autoblog.com/2009/06/09/fiat-to-chrysler-we-wont-walk-away/">Fiat to Chrysler: "We won't walk away"</a> originally appeared on <a href="http://www.autoblog.com">Autoblog</a> on Tue, 09 Jun 2009 13:39:00 EST.  Please see our <a href="http://www.weblogsinc.com/feed-terms/">terms for use of feeds</a>.</p><h6 style="clear: both; padding: 8px 0 0 0; height: 2px; font-size: 1px; border: 0; margin: 0; padding: 0;"></h6><a href=http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090609/ap_on_bi_ge/eu_italy_fiat_chrysler>Read</a>&nbsp;|&nbsp;<a href="http://www.autoblog.com/2009/06/09/fiat-to-chrysler-we-wont-walk-away/" rel="bookmark" title="Permanent link to this entry">Permalink</a>&nbsp;|&nbsp;<a href="http://www.autoblog.com/forward/19061987/" title="Send this entry to a friend via email">Email this</a>&nbsp;|&nbsp;<a href="http://www.autoblog.com/2009/06/09/fiat-to-chrysler-we-wont-walk-away/#comments" title="View reader comments on this entry">Comments</a>]]></description><category>chrysler</category><category>chrysler bankruptcy</category><category>ChryslerBankruptcy</category><category>fiat</category><category>government</category><category>indiana</category><category>legal</category><category>supreme court</category><category>SupremeCourt</category><dc:creator><![CDATA[Jonathon Ramsey]]></dc:creator><pubDate>Tue, 09 Jun 2009 13:39:00 EST</pubDate>
  <comments-url>http://www.autoblog.com/feed/19061987/article-comments.xml</comments-url>
  <rss-url>http://www.autoblog.com/feed/2009/06/09/fiat-to-chrysler-we-wont-walk-away/19061987/article-detail.xml</rss-url>
  <postid>19061987</postid>
<thumbnail>http://www.blogcdn.com/www.autoblog.com/media/2009/06/fiat_remain_chyrs_thumbnail.jpg</thumbnail>

</item><item><title><![CDATA[BREAKING: Supreme Court stays sale of Chrysler to Fiat]]></title><link>http://www.autoblog.com/2009/06/08/breaking-supreme-court-stays-sales-of-chrysler-to-fiat/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.autoblog.com/2009/06/08/breaking-supreme-court-stays-sales-of-chrysler-to-fiat/</guid><comments>http://www.autoblog.com/2009/06/08/breaking-supreme-court-stays-sales-of-chrysler-to-fiat/#comments</comments><description><![CDATA[<p>Filed under: <a href="http://www.autoblog.com/category/government-legal/" rel="tag">Government/Legal</a>, <a href="http://www.autoblog.com/chrysler/" rel="tag">Chrysler</a>, <a href="http://www.autoblog.com/fiat/" rel="tag">Fiat</a></p><a href="http://freep.com/article/20090608/BUSINESS01/90608080/High+court+temporarily+blocks+Chrysler+sale+to+Fiat"><img vspace="4" hspace="4" border="1" alt="" src="http://www.blogcdn.com/www.autoblog.com/media/2009/06/chry_supct_indi.jpg" /></a><br /><br />The sale of Chrysler's assets to Fiat have been delayed by Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg after three Indiana state pension funds <a href="http://www.autoblog.com/2009/06/08/chryslers-novel-bankruptcy-taken-to-the-supreme-court-by-unha/">lost their case in New York and filed papers with the highest court the land</a>. Early reports indicate that this is only a temporary stay, with Ginsburg saying the sale is "stayed pending further order." Chrysler's lawyers have said the stay could cause the deal with Fiat to go under.<br /><br />[Source: <a href="http://freep.com/article/20090608/BUSINESS01/90608080/High+court+temporarily+blocks+Chrysler+sale+to+Fiat">Freep</a>]<p style="padding:5px;background:#ddd;border:1px solid #ccc;clear:both;"><a href="http://www.autoblog.com/2009/06/08/breaking-supreme-court-stays-sales-of-chrysler-to-fiat/">BREAKING: Supreme Court stays sale of Chrysler to Fiat</a> originally appeared on <a href="http://www.autoblog.com">Autoblog</a> on Mon, 08 Jun 2009 16:26:00 EST.  Please see our <a href="http://www.weblogsinc.com/feed-terms/">terms for use of feeds</a>.</p><h6 style="clear: both; padding: 8px 0 0 0; height: 2px; font-size: 1px; border: 0; margin: 0; padding: 0;"></h6><a href="http://www.autoblog.com/2009/06/08/breaking-supreme-court-stays-sales-of-chrysler-to-fiat/" rel="bookmark" title="Permanent link to this entry">Permalink</a>&nbsp;|&nbsp;<a href="http://www.autoblog.com/forward/19061260/" title="Send this entry to a friend via email">Email this</a>&nbsp;|&nbsp;<a href="http://www.autoblog.com/2009/06/08/breaking-supreme-court-stays-sales-of-chrysler-to-fiat/#comments" title="View reader comments on this entry">Comments</a>]]></description><category>breaking</category><category>Chrysler</category><category>chrysler bankruptcy</category><category>chrysler fiat supreme court</category><category>ChryslerBankruptcy</category><category>ChryslerFiatSupremeCourt</category><category>deal</category><category>fiat</category><category>supreme court</category><category>SupremeCourt</category><dc:creator><![CDATA[Damon Lavrinc]]></dc:creator><pubDate>Mon, 08 Jun 2009 16:26:00 EST</pubDate>
  <comments-url>http://www.autoblog.com/feed/19061260/article-comments.xml</comments-url>
  <rss-url>http://www.autoblog.com/feed/2009/06/08/breaking-supreme-court-stays-sales-of-chrysler-to-fiat/19061260/article-detail.xml</rss-url>
  <postid>19061260</postid>
<thumbnail>http://www.blogcdn.com/www.autoblog.com/media/2009/06/chry_supct_indi_thumbnail.jpg</thumbnail>

</item><item><title><![CDATA[Chrysler bankruptcy taken to Supreme Court by unhappy shareholders]]></title><link>http://www.autoblog.com/2009/06/08/chryslers-novel-bankruptcy-taken-to-the-supreme-court-by-unha/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.autoblog.com/2009/06/08/chryslers-novel-bankruptcy-taken-to-the-supreme-court-by-unha/</guid><comments>http://www.autoblog.com/2009/06/08/chryslers-novel-bankruptcy-taken-to-the-supreme-court-by-unha/#comments</comments><description><![CDATA[<p>Filed under: <a href="http://www.autoblog.com/category/government-legal/" rel="tag">Government/Legal</a>, <a href="http://www.autoblog.com/chrysler/" rel="tag">Chrysler</a>, <a href="http://www.autoblog.com/category/earnings-financials/" rel="tag">Earnings/Financials</a></p><a href="http://www.autonews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20090607/ANA02/906079994/1197"><img vspace="4" hspace="4" border="1" src="http://www.blogcdn.com/www.autoblog.com/media/2009/06/chry_supct_indi.jpg" alt="" /></a><br /><br />As the movie <a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0091217/"><em>Hoosiers</em></a> amply demonstrated, Indiana natives don't quit. That's also true for three Indiana state pension funds who have <a href="http://www.autoblog.com/2009/06/04/report-chryslers-sale-to-fiat-put-on-hold-temporarily-to-hear/">fought Chrysler's bankruptcy</a> all the way to the federal appeals court in New York and, having lost their case there, are filing papers with the Supreme Court today.<br /><br />The central issue is that the funds feel Chrysler's post-bankruptcy remuneration plans have unfairly cost the funds a great deal of value by putting unsecured debtors such as the UAW ahead of the funds' claims. They are fighting the bankruptcy by alleging that the government's TARP disbursal to Chrysler was unconstitutional and that the subsequent events amount to a covert reorganization, not Chapter 11.<br /><br />Yet when asked whether a Chrysler liquidation would be better for the pension funds than the Fiat deal, <a href="http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2009/06/07/scotus-chrysler.html">the funds' lawyer replied</a> that he was looking for more remuneration for secured debtors. The filing will go to Justice Ginsburg who will decide whether to accept it at all, to handle it alone or to refer to the full court for hearing. Chrysler has until June 15 to emerge free and clear, else Fiat can walk away. And if that happens, <a href="http://www.autoblog.com/2009/05/05/chrysler-pursuing-clause-to-award-fiat-35-million-if-deal-falls/">Chrysler might owe Fiat $35 million</a> -- which is just $7 million short of what the three Indiana funds together have invested in the Pentastar. <em>Thanks for the tip, MM!</em><br /><br />[Source: <a href="http://www.autonews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20090607/ANA02/906079994/1197">Automotive News</a>, sub. req'd]<p style="padding:5px;background:#ddd;border:1px solid #ccc;clear:both;"><a href="http://www.autoblog.com/2009/06/08/chryslers-novel-bankruptcy-taken-to-the-supreme-court-by-unha/">Chrysler bankruptcy taken to Supreme Court by unhappy shareholders</a> originally appeared on <a href="http://www.autoblog.com">Autoblog</a> on Mon, 08 Jun 2009 08:28:00 EST.  Please see our <a href="http://www.weblogsinc.com/feed-terms/">terms for use of feeds</a>.</p><h6 style="clear: both; padding: 8px 0 0 0; height: 2px; font-size: 1px; border: 0; margin: 0; padding: 0;"></h6><a href=http://www.autonews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20090607/ANA02/906079994/1197>Read</a>&nbsp;|&nbsp;<a href="http://www.autoblog.com/2009/06/08/chryslers-novel-bankruptcy-taken-to-the-supreme-court-by-unha/" rel="bookmark" title="Permanent link to this entry">Permalink</a>&nbsp;|&nbsp;<a href="http://www.autoblog.com/forward/19060022/" title="Send this entry to a friend via email">Email this</a>&nbsp;|&nbsp;<a href="http://www.autoblog.com/2009/06/08/chryslers-novel-bankruptcy-taken-to-the-supreme-court-by-unha/#comments" title="View reader comments on this entry">Comments</a>]]></description><category>bankruptcy</category><category>chrysler</category><category>chrysler bankruptcy</category><category>ChryslerBankruptcy</category><category>financials</category><category>government</category><category>legal</category><category>supreme court</category><category>SupremeCourt</category><dc:creator><![CDATA[Jonathon Ramsey]]></dc:creator><pubDate>Mon, 08 Jun 2009 08:28:00 EST</pubDate>
  <comments-url>http://www.autoblog.com/feed/19060022/article-comments.xml</comments-url>
  <rss-url>http://www.autoblog.com/feed/2009/06/08/chryslers-novel-bankruptcy-taken-to-the-supreme-court-by-unha/19060022/article-detail.xml</rss-url>
  <postid>19060022</postid>
<thumbnail>http://www.blogcdn.com/www.autoblog.com/media/2009/06/chry_supct_indi_thumbnail.jpg</thumbnail>

</item><item><title><![CDATA[Supreme Court rules that police can chase, even if it endangers lives]]></title><link>http://www.autoblog.com/2007/05/01/supreme-court-rules-that-police-can-chase-even-if-it-endangers/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.autoblog.com/2007/05/01/supreme-court-rules-that-police-can-chase-even-if-it-endangers/</guid><comments>http://www.autoblog.com/2007/05/01/supreme-court-rules-that-police-can-chase-even-if-it-endangers/#comments</comments><description><![CDATA[<p>Filed under: <a href="http://www.autoblog.com/category/government-legal/" rel="tag">Government/Legal</a>, <a href="http://www.autoblog.com/category/safety/" rel="tag">Safety</a></p><a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/30/us/30cnd-scotus.html?_r=2&amp;hp&amp;oref=slogin&amp;oref=slogin"><img vspace="4" hspace="4" border="o" align="right" alt="" src="http://www.blogcdn.com/www.autoblog.com/media/2007/05/harris_chase.jpg" /></a>Common sense dictates that if you run from the police, it will end badly. In our oft-litigious society, suing as a means to evade responsibility is a popular option. In 2001, 19-year-old Victor Harris engaged Coweta County deputy sheriff Timothy Scott in a dangerous chase on rain-slicked roads. To end the chase, deputy Scott rammed Harris's car, which then crashed down an embankment. Mr. Harris was left a quadriplegic from the injuries sustained in the wreck, and subsequently sued on the contention that the sheriff used unreasonable deadly force. <br /><br />The case made its way to the Supreme Court, which ruled 8-1 against Harris's claim. Lower courts had ruled in favor of Harris, but the Supreme Court overturned that opinion. The reasoning for the decision was that while police chases are dangerous, doing away with them ensures perpetrators a means of escape by merely driving erratically at high speed. Either way, there'll still be someone running from police, endangering other innocent bystanders. While the outcome of Mr. Harris's chase is tragic, it doesn't change the fact that instead of stopping and accepting a citation for travelling 73 mph in a 55 zone, he chose to run. It's terrible that someone so young will have to live out the rest of his days with paralysis, but that could have been prevented by a more thorough examination of the consequences at the time he attempted to evade the law. The most damning bit of evidence was the <a href="http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/video/scott_v_harris.rmvb">video</a> of the chase, which shows how reckless Mr. Harris really was, and likely led to the <a href="http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/06pdf/05-1631.pdf">near-unanimous decision</a> from the court.<br /><br />[Source: NYTimes]<br /><br /><br /><p style="padding:5px;background:#ddd;border:1px solid #ccc;clear:both;"><a href="http://www.autoblog.com/2007/05/01/supreme-court-rules-that-police-can-chase-even-if-it-endangers/">Supreme Court rules that police can chase, even if it endangers lives</a> originally appeared on <a href="http://www.autoblog.com">Autoblog</a> on Tue, 01 May 2007 13:31:00 EST.  Please see our <a href="http://www.weblogsinc.com/feed-terms/">terms for use of feeds</a>.</p><h6 style="clear: both; padding: 8px 0 0 0; height: 2px; font-size: 1px; border: 0; margin: 0; padding: 0;"></h6><a href=http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/30/us/30cnd-scotus.html?_r=1&amp;hp&amp;oref=slogin>Read</a>&nbsp;|&nbsp;<a href="http://www.autoblog.com/2007/05/01/supreme-court-rules-that-police-can-chase-even-if-it-endangers/" rel="bookmark" title="Permanent link to this entry">Permalink</a>&nbsp;|&nbsp;<a href="http://www.autoblog.com/forward/885972/" title="Send this entry to a friend via email">Email this</a>&nbsp;|&nbsp;<a href="http://www.autoblog.com/2007/05/01/supreme-court-rules-that-police-can-chase-even-if-it-endangers/#comments" title="View reader comments on this entry">Comments</a>]]></description><category>4th amendment</category><category>4th amendment rights</category><category>4thAmendment</category><category>4thAmendmentRights</category><category>chase</category><category>constitutional</category><category>georgia</category><category>PIT</category><category>police chase</category><category>PoliceChase</category><category>speeding</category><category>supreme court</category><category>SupremeCourt</category><category>victor harris</category><category>VictorHarris</category><category>video</category><dc:creator><![CDATA[Dan Roth]]></dc:creator><pubDate>Tue, 01 May 2007 13:31:00 EST</pubDate>
  <comments-url>http://www.autoblog.com/feed/885972/article-comments.xml</comments-url>
  <rss-url>http://www.autoblog.com/feed/2007/05/01/supreme-court-rules-that-police-can-chase-even-if-it-endangers/885972/article-detail.xml</rss-url>
  <postid>885972</postid>
<thumbnail>http://www.blogcdn.com/www.autoblog.com/media/2007/05/harris_chase_thumbnail.jpg</thumbnail>

</item><item><title><![CDATA[Supreme court says EPA can regulate greenhouse gases]]></title><link>http://www.autoblog.com/2007/04/03/supreme-court-says-epa-can-regulate-greenhouse-gases/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.autoblog.com/2007/04/03/supreme-court-says-epa-can-regulate-greenhouse-gases/</guid><comments>http://www.autoblog.com/2007/04/03/supreme-court-says-epa-can-regulate-greenhouse-gases/#comments</comments><description><![CDATA[<p>Filed under: <a href="http://www.autoblog.com/category/government-legal/" rel="tag">Government/Legal</a>, <a href="http://www.autoblog.com/category/green/" rel="tag">Green</a></p><a href="http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070402/pl_nm/usa_warming_court_dc;_ylt=AtHIP8cQct2y7DQ5B6LOQr5Z.3QA"><img vspace="4" hspace="4" border="1" align="right" src="http://www.blogcdn.com/www.autoblog.com/media/2007/04/supreme-court-1.jpg"  alt="" /></a>Admittedly, we're a little late to the party on this one, but thankfully, our <a href="http://www.autobloggreen.com/2007/04/02/us-supreme-court-rules-that-epa-can-regulate-greenhouse-gases/">greener sibling site</a> was on top of things when the Supreme Court made an important ruling yesterday regarding the Environmental Protection Agency's enforcement of the Clean Air Act.<br /><br />The ruling revolves around the regulation of carbon dioxide, classifying it as a pollutant and, more specifically, a greenhouse gas. Considering that this is the first case involving global warming, the 5-4 ruling was a major blow to the current administration's opposition of mandatory controls on emissions.<br /><br />Some of the quotes from the court are worth a read (<a href="http://www.autobloggreen.com/2007/04/02/us-supreme-court-rules-that-epa-can-regulate-greenhouse-gases/">click here for AutoblogGreen's post</a>), but in the end, it's not the court's place to make regulations, only uphold them. As such, the EPA has to make changes to the existing law and/or uphold current regulations. However, don't expect anything to change until later this decade, if and when the Executive Branch has a shift in its policy towards global climate change.<br /><br />[Source: Reuters via <a href="http://www.autobloggreen.com/2007/04/02/us-supreme-court-rules-that-epa-can-regulate-greenhouse-gases/">AutoblogGreen</a>]<p style="padding:5px;background:#ddd;border:1px solid #ccc;clear:both;"><a href="http://www.autoblog.com/2007/04/03/supreme-court-says-epa-can-regulate-greenhouse-gases/">Supreme court says EPA can regulate greenhouse gases</a> originally appeared on <a href="http://www.autoblog.com">Autoblog</a> on Tue, 03 Apr 2007 08:35:00 EST.  Please see our <a href="http://www.weblogsinc.com/feed-terms/">terms for use of feeds</a>.</p><h6 style="clear: both; padding: 8px 0 0 0; height: 2px; font-size: 1px; border: 0; margin: 0; padding: 0;"></h6><a href=http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070402/pl_nm/usa_warming_court_dc;_ylt=AtHIP8cQct2y7DQ5B6LOQr5Z.3QA>Read</a>&nbsp;|&nbsp;<a href="http://www.autoblog.com/2007/04/03/supreme-court-says-epa-can-regulate-greenhouse-gases/" rel="bookmark" title="Permanent link to this entry">Permalink</a>&nbsp;|&nbsp;<a href="http://www.autoblog.com/forward/865775/" title="Send this entry to a friend via email">Email this</a>&nbsp;|&nbsp;<a href="http://www.autoblog.com/2007/04/03/supreme-court-says-epa-can-regulate-greenhouse-gases/#comments" title="View reader comments on this entry">Comments</a>]]></description><category>adminstration</category><category>bush</category><category>carbon dioxide</category><category>CarbonDioxide</category><category>clean air act</category><category>CleanAirAct</category><category>environmental protection agency</category><category>EnvironmentalProtectionAgency</category><category>epa</category><category>supreme court</category><category>SupremeCourt</category><dc:creator><![CDATA[Damon Lavrinc]]></dc:creator><pubDate>Tue, 03 Apr 2007 08:35:00 EST</pubDate>
  <comments-url>http://www.autoblog.com/feed/865775/article-comments.xml</comments-url>
  <rss-url>http://www.autoblog.com/feed/2007/04/03/supreme-court-says-epa-can-regulate-greenhouse-gases/865775/article-detail.xml</rss-url>
  <postid>865775</postid>
<thumbnail>http://www.blogcdn.com/www.autoblog.com/media/2007/04/supreme-court-1_thumbnail.jpg</thumbnail>

</item><item><title><![CDATA[U.S. Supreme Court to consider government's role in CO2 regulation]]></title><link>http://www.autoblog.com/2006/06/26/u-s-supreme-court-to-consider-governments-role-in-co2-regulati/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.autoblog.com/2006/06/26/u-s-supreme-court-to-consider-governments-role-in-co2-regulati/</guid><comments>http://www.autoblog.com/2006/06/26/u-s-supreme-court-to-consider-governments-role-in-co2-regulati/#comments</comments><description><![CDATA[<p>Filed under: <a href="http://www.autoblog.com/category/government-legal/" rel="tag">Government/Legal</a></p><a href="http://www.northernfence.org/"><img vspace="4" hspace="4" border="1" align="right" src="http://www.autoblog.com/media/2006/06/supremecourt.jpg" id="vimage_1" alt="" /></a>The Supreme Court announced Monday that it has agreed to hear an appeal filed by a number of states, cities and environmental groups hoping to force the federal government to regulate carbon dioxide emissions from vehicles. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency maintains that it cannot regulate CO2 emissions because the Clean Air Act does not give it the authority to do so. An appeals court ruling last year upheld the EPA position.<br /><br />The appeal involves Baltimore, New York City and Washington, D.C., along with California, Connecticut, Illinois, Maine, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont and Washington. The group's request for a Supreme Court ruling was opposed by the Bush administration, ten other states and a group representing electricity generating companies.<br /><br />The case will be heard later this year.<br /><br />[Source: Reuters]<p style="padding:5px;background:#ddd;border:1px solid #ccc;clear:both;"><a href="http://www.autoblog.com/2006/06/26/u-s-supreme-court-to-consider-governments-role-in-co2-regulati/">U.S. Supreme Court to consider government's role in CO2 regulation</a> originally appeared on <a href="http://www.autoblog.com">Autoblog</a> on Mon, 26 Jun 2006 14:36:00 EST.  Please see our <a href="http://www.weblogsinc.com/feed-terms/">terms for use of feeds</a>.</p><h6 style="clear: both; padding: 8px 0 0 0; height: 2px; font-size: 1px; border: 0; margin: 0; padding: 0;"></h6><a href=http://today.reuters.com/business/newsarticle.aspx?type=basicIndustries&amp;storyID=nN26226858&amp;imageid=&amp;cap=>Read</a>&nbsp;|&nbsp;<a href="http://www.autoblog.com/2006/06/26/u-s-supreme-court-to-consider-governments-role-in-co2-regulati/" rel="bookmark" title="Permanent link to this entry">Permalink</a>&nbsp;|&nbsp;<a href="http://www.autoblog.com/forward/636967/" title="Send this entry to a friend via email">Email this</a>&nbsp;|&nbsp;<a href="http://www.autoblog.com/2006/06/26/u-s-supreme-court-to-consider-governments-role-in-co2-regulati/#comments" title="View reader comments on this entry">Comments</a>]]></description><category>auto emissions</category><category>carbon dioxide</category><category>co2</category><category>emissions</category><category>environmental protection agency</category><category>epa</category><category>greenhouse gas</category><category>supreme court</category><category>tailpipe emissions</category><dc:creator><![CDATA[Stuart Waterman]]></dc:creator><pubDate>Mon, 26 Jun 2006 14:36:00 EST</pubDate>
  <comments-url>http://www.autoblog.com/feed/636967/article-comments.xml</comments-url>
  <rss-url>http://www.autoblog.com/feed/2006/06/26/u-s-supreme-court-to-consider-governments-role-in-co2-regulati/636967/article-detail.xml</rss-url>
  <postid>636967</postid>
<thumbnail>http://www.autoblog.com/media/2006/06/supremecourt_thumbnail.jpg</thumbnail>

</item><item><title><![CDATA[U.S. Supreme Court rules in favor of DCX on Ohio tax incentives]]></title><link>http://www.autoblog.com/2006/05/16/u-s-supreme-court-rules-in-favor-of-dcx-on-ohio-tax-incentives/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.autoblog.com/2006/05/16/u-s-supreme-court-rules-in-favor-of-dcx-on-ohio-tax-incentives/</guid><comments>http://www.autoblog.com/2006/05/16/u-s-supreme-court-rules-in-favor-of-dcx-on-ohio-tax-incentives/#comments</comments><description><![CDATA[<p>Filed under: <a href="http://www.autoblog.com/category/government-legal/" rel="tag">Government/Legal</a>, <a href="http://www.autoblog.com/category/daimlerchrysler/" rel="tag">Daimler</a></p><img width="250" vspace="4" hspace="4" height="202" border="0" align="right" src="http://www.autoblog.com/media/2006/05/20060117-Supreme-Court.jpg" alt="" />Yesterday the U.S. Supreme Court overturned a decision by the Sixth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that ruled the state of Ohio's decision to use tax incentives to attract DaimlerChrysler's business was unconstitutional. Ohio had granted DCX an investment tax credit after the company decided to build its Toledo North Assembly plant in the state but a "taxpayer group" headed by who else but Ralph Nader challenged it. DCX sees the ruling as a victory for America that will help keep investment and jobs within our borders in an increasingly competitive global market. <br /><br />A statement made by Ohio government Bob Taft reveals that the tax in question levied against an incoming company's machinery and equipment is no longer in effect anyway, though the Supreme Court's ruling means Ohio will be able to honor the incentives it had offered other companies in return for their investment in the state. <br /><br />[Source: DaimlerChrysler]<p style="padding:5px;background:#ddd;border:1px solid #ccc;clear:both;"><a href="http://www.autoblog.com/2006/05/16/u-s-supreme-court-rules-in-favor-of-dcx-on-ohio-tax-incentives/">U.S. Supreme Court rules in favor of DCX on Ohio tax incentives</a> originally appeared on <a href="http://www.autoblog.com">Autoblog</a> on Tue, 16 May 2006 09:34:00 EST.  Please see our <a href="http://www.weblogsinc.com/feed-terms/">terms for use of feeds</a>.</p><h6 style="clear: both; padding: 8px 0 0 0; height: 2px; font-size: 1px; border: 0; margin: 0; padding: 0;"></h6><a href="http://www.autoblog.com/2006/05/16/u-s-supreme-court-rules-in-favor-of-dcx-on-ohio-tax-incentives/" rel="bookmark" title="Permanent link to this entry">Permalink</a>&nbsp;|&nbsp;<a href="http://www.autoblog.com/forward/618714/" title="Send this entry to a friend via email">Email this</a>&nbsp;|&nbsp;<a href="http://www.autoblog.com/2006/05/16/u-s-supreme-court-rules-in-favor-of-dcx-on-ohio-tax-incentives/#comments" title="View reader comments on this entry">Comments</a>]]></description><category>Bob Taft</category><category>BobTaft</category><category>Ohio</category><category>Ralph Nader</category><category>RalphNader</category><category>ruling</category><category>Supreme Court</category><category>SupremeCourt</category><category>tax incentives</category><category>TaxIncentives</category><category>unconstitutional</category><dc:creator><![CDATA[John Neff]]></dc:creator><pubDate>Tue, 16 May 2006 09:34:00 EST</pubDate>
  <comments-url>http://www.autoblog.com/feed/618714/article-comments.xml</comments-url>
  <rss-url>http://www.autoblog.com/feed/2006/05/16/u-s-supreme-court-rules-in-favor-of-dcx-on-ohio-tax-incentives/618714/article-detail.xml</rss-url>
  <postid>618714</postid>
<thumbnail>http://www.autoblog.com/media/2006/05/20060117-Supreme-Court_thumbnail.jpg</thumbnail>

</item><pages>
  <prev>-1</prev>
  <next>2</next>
</pages></channel></rss>