gtmlo

Yesterday’s decision in Provost v. Regents of the University of California, et al., case no. G043523 , offers some reminders on briefing. For those of you completely new to this, consider the sequence of briefing before you read any further: the appealing party (“appellant”) files his opening brief, the party defending against the appeal (the “respondent”) files his respondent’s brief, and then the appellant, at his option, files a reply brief. Let’s start with the appellant’s opening brief... Read Full Story

Second District, Division 6 Courthouse in Ventura Picking up CLE credit is never as easy or fun as an evening with the justices of Division 6, which I and a few dozen other lawyers did last night at the courthouse for District 2, Division 6 in Ventura. The discussion was very informal, but there was still a lot to be learned — or in some cases, have confirmed. Much of the evening was give-and-take. I tried to take detailed notes, but I can only write so fast. So, to avoid misquoting... Read Full Story

The California Supreme Court’s much-anticipated opinion in Perry v. Brown was filed this morning. The court unanimously found that the Prop 8 proponents, who have a pending Ninth Circuit appeal from the federal district court decision finding the law unconstitutional, have standing to defend the law in court when the state attorney general refuses to do so. Answering certification of that question from the Ninth Circuit, the California Supreme Court concludes its long (61-page) decision with... Read Full Story

I’d love to have a nickel for every prospective client who has called me about appealing his case for the wrong reason. I don’t mean that he’s misidentified the best legal issue to raise, or even that his appeal has a very low probability of success. I mean reasons wholly apart from the merits of their case. When one of these prospects calls, he doesn’t  know he wants to appeal for the wrong reason. It’s up to me to deliver the bad news, usually. You’re probably thinking that this is the... Read Full Story

A recent opinion from the court of appeal demonstrates that while redundancy is usually something to be avoided, sometimes it’s a good way to make a point. [Plaintiff] persistently misstates the central issue in the case by insisting, here and in related appeals, that the question presented is whether a defendant charged with trade secret misappropriation “may escape liability” by establishing that it “does not comprehend the specific information comprising the trade secrets.” This is not... Read Full Story

Image via CrunchBase If you are an iPhone-using lawyer, you really should subscribe to the iPhoneJD blog, where New Orleans attorney Jeff Richardson keeps you updated not only on specific legal uses for the iPhone, but on all things iPhone. Yesterday, he reviewed Fastcase , an iPhone app for legal research, and the opening paragraph could hardly have been more glowing: I will start this review with what probably belongs in my conclusion:  Every single lawyer using an iPhone should... Read Full Story

There’s nothing quite so frustrating as finding the perfect case — factually and legally on “all fours” with yours, with a “slam dunk” holding — that has been depublished (or was never published). California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a) , prohibits citation to opinions “not certified for publication or ordered published.” That “perfect” case might as well not exist if it’s not published. Well, not quite. Such cases can be well worth finding because, in the absence of published cases, they... Read Full Story

Image via Wikipedia The Supreme Court denied review today in Burlage v. Superior Court , leaving intact the decision that, by speculation of some ( including yours truly ), will increase the number of legal challenges to arbitration decisions. I won’t go so far as to say that it will “open the floodgates,” but it certainly opens an avenue to judicial review that many would not have tried before the decision was published. Expect to see many challenges that assert, though not in so... Read Full Story

A Friday afternoon press release (PDF) from the Administrative Office of the Courts announced that this Wednesday’s meeting of the Judicial Council will include a review of  the impact of the court closure policy instituted last September. From the agenda: Based on survey responses from the Supreme Court, Courts of Appeal, 54 superior courts, and 275 justice system partners, the Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC) recommends continuing the one-day-per-month judicial branch closures... Read Full Story

Duke University professor Joan A. Magat has an article up at SSRN suggesting changes in footnote use in academic legal writing, but the future she predicts for legal journals in “ Bottom Heavy: Legal Footnotes ” may be the future of all legal authority: No more paper: just electronic journals with links to sources. That’s what’s ahead. All this current, Bluebook-inspired preoccupation with small caps and spacing initials and the like will go the way of the mastodon. One of these days, we’ll... Read Full Story