Super Lawyers! 2009-2017
AVVO Superb 10-Star Rating!
Killer Cross Examination!
dBusiness TopLawyers 2011-16
Top 100 Trial Lawyers!
Best of Hour Detroit!
Medical Marijuana Case?
Domestic Violence Case?
Neil Rockind TEDx Talk at OU: The Joy of the Jury
Visit ROCKIND LAW on the web!
Looking for a specific crime?
- June 2017
- September 2016
- August 2016
- April 2016
- March 2016
- January 2016
- December 2015
- October 2015
- September 2015
- July 2015
- June 2015
- April 2015
- March 2015
- February 2015
- January 2015
- December 2014
- November 2014
- October 2014
- July 2014
- April 2014
- March 2014
- January 2014
- December 2013
- November 2013
- October 2013
- September 2013
- August 2013
- July 2013
- June 2013
- May 2013
- April 2013
- March 2013
- February 2013
- January 2013
- December 2012
- November 2012
- October 2012
- September 2012
- August 2012
- July 2012
- June 2012
- May 2012
- April 2012
- March 2012
- February 2012
- January 2012
- December 2011
- November 2011
- October 2011
- September 2011
- August 2011
- July 2011
- June 2011
- May 2011
- April 2011
- March 2011
- February 2011
- January 2011
- December 2010
- November 2010
- October 2010
- September 2010
- August 2010
- July 2010
- @KT_So_It_Goes Well that settles it... lol. My new closing argument for every case. 1 day ago
- @MSNBC @AliVelshi This clip should be mandatory viewing for anyone engaging in "media relations" and crisis managem… twitter.com/i/web/status/9… 2 days ago
- @Mikel_Jollett @hughhewitt Hewitt knows that is "not how it works." What an abuse of statistics and representative government. 2 days ago
- @bradheath It reads like one of those spam emails from a foreign company asking for legal help. 2 days ago
- @washingtonpost Not a Hail Mary. More like a botched punt that the other team returns for a touchdown. 2 days ago
Please be advised that nothing written or contained within this blog is intended to be legal advise, nor should such content be relied upon as legal advice. If you need to consult with a licensed attorney regarding a criminal case or a potential criminal case, please call our office immediately at 248-208-3800.
Please note that this blog is open to the public and that posting a comment on this blog does not create an attorney-client relationship.
Blog MaintenanceThis blog was created and is maintained by Colin A. Daniels, Associate Attorney at ROCKIND LAW. If you have any questions or concerns about any of the contents of this blog, please direct those questions and/or concerns to Colin A. Daniels at email@example.com.
Search Rockind Law Blog
Monthly Archives: October 2014Image
As of Today’s date, Neil Rockind has received these recognition’s in 2014:
Super Lawyers Top 100 in Michigan – LexisNexis
Super Lawyers Top 50 Consumer Lawyers in Michigan – LexisNexus
Leading Lawyer in Michigan – Leading Lawyers
Top Attorneys in Michigan – Crain’s Detroit
Top Attorneys in Michigan – Hour Detroit
Top Attorneys in Michigan – New York Times
Top Criminal Defense Lawyer in Michigan – DBusiness Detroit
Top White Collar Defense Lawyer in Michigan – DBusiness Detroit
Top OWI Defense Lawyer in Michigan – DBusiness Detroit
Top 100 Trial Lawyer – National Trial Lawyer’s Association
Top 100 OWI Attorneys in Michigan – National Advocacy for DUI Defense
Superb 10 Rating on AVVO
And Neil Rockind, P.C. has the results to back them up!
(Reuters) – The U.S. Supreme Court declined on Monday to decide once and for all whether states can ban gay marriage, a surprising move that will allow gay men and women to get married in five additional states, with more likely to follow quickly.
On the first day of its new term, the high court without comment rejected appeals in cases involving five states – Virginia, Oklahoma, Utah, Wisconsin and Indiana – that had prohibited gay marriage, leaving intact lower-court rulings striking down those bans.
As a result, the number of states permitting gay marriage would jump from 19 to 24, likely soon to be followed by six more states that are bound by the regional federal appeals court rulings that had struck down other bans. That would leave another 20 states that prohibit same-sex marriage.
But the move by the nine justices to sidestep the contentious issue means there will be no imminent national ruling on the matter, with litigation likely to continue in states with bans.
“Any time same-sex couples are extended marriage equality is something to celebrate, and today is a joyous day for thousands of couples across America who will immediately feel the impact of today’s Supreme Court action,” said Chad Griffin, president of the gay rights group Human Rights Campaign.
Evan Wolfson, who heads the group Freedom to Marry, said while Monday’s action provided “a bright green light” to gay marriage in more states, gay rights advocates still want the high court to intervene and provide a definitive ruling covering all 50 states. “The Supreme Court should bring the country to a nationwide resolution,” Wolfson said.
Officials in states whose bans were overturned had also wanted the high court to decide the matter. The justices could take up a future case, but their move on Monday could send a strong signal to lower court judges that rulings striking down gay marriage bans are consistent with the U.S. Constitution.
Gay couples in affected states are expected to seek marriage licenses immediately because the high court’s action means the appeals court’s rulings are no longer on hold. Virginia began issuing licenses within hours of the court’s action.
The other states that are likely to be imminently affected are North Carolina, West Virginia, South Carolina, Wyoming, Kansas and Colorado.
The court did not explain why it was not taking up the issue. Among the possibilities are that a majority believes it would be premature to intervene and wants to see more lower court action, or that on this deeply polarized court neither the liberals nor the conservatives could be certain of how the issue would resolved and did not want to risk forcing a national precedent now.
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who has officiated at a same-sex wedding, said last month that for the justices there is “no need for us to rush” unless a split emerges in the regional federal appeals courts and one of them decides to uphold a state ban on gay marriage.
In order for the Supreme Court to hear a case, at least four of the nine justices must vote to hear it.
Most legal experts had believed the justices would want to weigh in on a question of national importance that focuses on whether the U.S. Constitution’s guarantee of equal treatment under the law means gay marriage bans were unlawful.
White House spokesman Josh Earnest said that “there may ultimately be a role for the Supreme Court to play” on gay marriage and that the justices must make that call. Earnest emphasized that President Barack Obama’s view is that “it’s wrong to prevent same-sex couples who are in loving, committed relationships and want to marry from doing so.”
Opponents of gay marriage said they would continue to defend state bans in court. “The people should decide this issue, not the courts,” said Byron Babione, a lawyer with the conservative Alliance Defending Freedom.
In June 2013, the justices ruled 5-4 to strike down a key part of a federal law called the Defense of Marriage Act that had restricted the definition of marriage to heterosexual couples for the purpose of federal government benefits.
But in a separate case decided that day, the justices also sidestepped the broader question of whether state bans violated the Constitution, but allowed gay marriage in California.
The momentum within America’s courts in favor of gay marriage reflects a sea-change in public opinion in the past decade, with polls showing a steady increase in support. It was only as recently as 2004 that Massachusetts became the first state to allow gay marriage following a state court ruling.
State officials defending their bans say the Constitution does not dictate how states should define marriage and that there is no deeply rooted legal tradition that supports a right to gay marriage.
When the nine justices ascended their mahogany bench at 10 a.m., they betrayed no concern for the possible uncertainty or confusion arising from their orders rejecting the same-sex marriage cases. Proceeding with the usual practice, Chief Justice John Roberts announced only that “orders have been duly entered and certified” and were on file with the clerk’s office.
The justices then heard an hour of arguments in a case involving a police search.