• Home
  • About Me
  • Disclaimer

The Researching Paralegal

~ Articles and Research for Legal Professionals

The Researching Paralegal

Category Archives: Appellate Law

Court Splits on Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress.

27 Monday Jan 2014

Posted by Celia C. Elwell, RP in Damages, Health Law, Litigation, Massachusetts Supreme Court, Medical Malpractice, Torts, Trial Tips and Techniques

≈ Comments Off on Court Splits on Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress.

Tags

Bystander Liability, Damages, Emotional Distress, Impact Rule, Medical Malpractice, Neglience, Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, Toney v. Chester County Hospital, Tort, Zone of Impact Liability

Pennsylvania Supreme Court Splits On Extension of Tort of Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress, by Daniel E. Cummins, TORT TALK Blog

http://tinyurl.com/mr4matq

The recent December 22, 2011 split decision by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court in the long-anticipated Opinion in the case of Toney v. Chester County Hospital, 2011 WL 6413948 (Pa. Dec. 22, 2011)(Baer, Todd, and McCaffery, JJ. join in support of affirmance)(Castille, Saylor, Eakin, JJ. join in support of reversal)(Orie Melvin, J. not participating) serves to fuel an argument in favor of the extension of the tort of negligent infliction of emotional distress (NIED).

Share this:

  • Print (Opens in new window) Print
  • Tweet
  • Email a link to a friend (Opens in new window) Email
  • Share on Tumblr
  • Pocket
  • More
  • Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit
  • Share on Telegram (Opens in new window) Telegram
Like Loading...

2014 Amendments to Oklahoma’s Workers’ Compensation Court Rules.

25 Saturday Jan 2014

Posted by Celia C. Elwell, RP in Court Rules, Oklahoma Supreme Court, Workers' Compensation

≈ Comments Off on 2014 Amendments to Oklahoma’s Workers’ Compensation Court Rules.

Tags

2014 Amendments, Court Rules, Supreme Court of Oklahoma, Workers' Compensation Court

In Re Court Rules Of The Workers’ Compensation Court, 2014 OK 2, Decided January 16, 2014, Corrected January 17, 2014, published by the Supreme Court of the State of Oklahoma.

http://tinyurl.com/l7anrkw

Please note that the 2014 amendments to Oklahoma’s Workers’ Compensation Court Rules are not effective until January 31, 2014. –CCE

The Court Rules of the Workers’ Compensation Court as amended and approved by that Court on December 20, 2013, having been submitted to this Court for its consideration, are hereby approved. The rules are for official publication and shall become effective on January 31, 2014. The rules as amended shall be published in the Oklahoma Bar Journal three times. By today’s adoption of these rules, submitted by the Workers’ Compensation Court, this Court neither indicates what meaning should be ascribed to them in any given application nor settles their validity against challenges that may be launched on constitutional or statutory grounds, federal or state.

Share this:

  • Print (Opens in new window) Print
  • Tweet
  • Email a link to a friend (Opens in new window) Email
  • Share on Tumblr
  • Pocket
  • More
  • Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit
  • Share on Telegram (Opens in new window) Telegram
Like Loading...

Second Circuit Denies Officers’ Qualified Immunity.

22 Wednesday Jan 2014

Posted by Celia C. Elwell, RP in Appellate Law, Criminal Law, Evidence, Excessive Force, Fourth Amendment - Search & Seizure, Governmental Tort Claim Act, Litigation

≈ Comments Off on Second Circuit Denies Officers’ Qualified Immunity.

Tags

Adam Klasfeld, Confidential Informant, Courthouse News Service, Drug Paraphernalia, Drugs, Excessive Use of Force, Fourth Amendment, No Knock Warrant, Qualified Immunity, U.S. District Judge Lawrence Kahn, U.S. District Judge Rosemary Pooler, United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, Weapons

Botched Drug Bust Sends Investigator to Court, By Adam Klasfeld, Courthouse News Service

http://www.courthousenews.com/2014/01/22/64741.htm

 When law enforcement execute a search warrant on a residence, officers can use the “knock and announce” rule. Police knock on the door, announce their  intent to enter, and wait a “reasonable time” for the resident to open the door. Obviously, this approach has its drawbacks. Officers’ announcement of their presence before entering the residence can cause possible destruction of evidence and/or endanger the officers or others.

Law enforcement has another option – the “no knock” rule, which is just what it sounds like. Officers can obtain a search warrant to enter without knocking and announcing their presence or intentions before entering the residence. To obtain a no-knock warrant, the officers need to prove to the judge issuing the warrant that the officers are not disregarding reliable information indicating that this type of use of force is inappropriate. When procedures are properly followed, the involved officers have qualified immunity if the homeowner later sues for damages or excessive use of force under the Fourth Amendment.

When issuing a no-knock warrant, the police kick in or knock down the door to enter the residence. Regardless of the method, the door is often completely knocked off its hinges. In this Second Circuit case, the effect was even more dramatic. Around 6 a.m., Ms. McColley, a mother, and her young daughter woke to the sounds of the police knocking down the front door and the explosion of a flash bang grenade. -CCE

An immunity defense is premature for the drug investigator who led a turbulent raid on the apartment of a family with no criminal history, the 2nd Circuit ruled.

*     *     *

Michael Riley, an investigator for the Rensselaer County Drug & Gang Task Force, obtained the warrant days earlier based on the word of a confidential informant.

Though the CI claimed to have bought crack-cocaine from a man named Sport at the apartment, Riley conducted a background check on the property that revealed McColley as the tenant with her spotless record and young child.

He applied for the no-knock warrant anyway without mentioning the background check, the two-judge majority found.

‘The search of McColley’s home did not uncover any money, weapons, drugs, drug-related paraphernalia, or any evidence of criminality of any kind,’ Judge Rosemary Pooler wrote for the court. ‘The ERT took only a National Grid electric and gas bill and a registration bill for Hudson Valley Community College as fruits of the search.’

Accused of violating McColley’s Fourth Amendment rights, Rensaleer and Riley claimed qualified immunity, but U.S. District Judge Lawrence Kahn denied them summary judgment.

Share this:

  • Print (Opens in new window) Print
  • Tweet
  • Email a link to a friend (Opens in new window) Email
  • Share on Tumblr
  • Pocket
  • More
  • Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit
  • Share on Telegram (Opens in new window) Telegram
Like Loading...

When Do You File An Appeal?

22 Wednesday Jan 2014

Posted by Celia C. Elwell, RP in Appellate Law

≈ 2 Comments

Tags

Appeals, Attorney Fees, Final Appealable Order, Louisiana Civil Appeals Blog, Raymond Ward

Finality Of Judgment When Attorney’s Fees Not Yet Determined, by Raymond Ward, Louisiana Civil Appeals

http://tinyurl.com/pjcrk32

Mr. Ward raises an interesting point. An appeal cannot be filed until the court issues a final, appealable order. In many jurisdictions, the trial court’s journal entry or judgment on the merits of the all the causes of action in a case is indeed a final, appealable order, even when the court has not yet ruled on an attorney fee and cost award.

Sometimes attorneys wait to file an appeal until the attorney fee award is decided, which may be past the tolling of the 30-day deadline to file the appeal on the merits. Mr. Ward explains how to resolve this issue. -CCE

Share this:

  • Print (Opens in new window) Print
  • Tweet
  • Email a link to a friend (Opens in new window) Email
  • Share on Tumblr
  • Pocket
  • More
  • Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit
  • Share on Telegram (Opens in new window) Telegram
Like Loading...

PDF Hyperlinks & E-Briefs Requirement by Some Courts.

18 Saturday Jan 2014

Posted by Celia C. Elwell, RP in Brief Writing, Citations, E-Briefs, E-Briefs, Legal Writing, PDF Hyperlinks, Quotations, Tennessee Supreme Court, United States Supreme Court

≈ Comments Off on PDF Hyperlinks & E-Briefs Requirement by Some Courts.

Tags

California, Connecticut, E-Briefs, Ernie Svenson, Federal Court, Hon. David Nuffer, Hyperlinking, Link Rot, New Hampshire, PDF for Lawyers, PDF Hyperlinks, Texas Supreme Court, U.S. Supreme Court

PDF Hyperlinks & E-Briefs: Overview Of How Lawyers Can Use And Create Them, By Ernie Svenson, PDF for Lawyers

http://pdfforlawyers.com/pdf-hyperlinks-ebriefs/

To emphasize the point, here is a brief compilation of Courts that use or require .pdf hyperlinks. Please note that this is not a complete list. If you know of other courts that require or allow .pdf hyperlinks in briefs, please forward that information to me, and I will post it. As a general caveat, always check your Court’s rules when preparing any brief to be filed with the Court, and follow them concisely.

Also, please note that the U.S. Supreme Court uses hyperlinks to citations in its opinions. But, it has encountered something called “link rot,” which causes hyperlinks to deteriorate with time. That issue has been discussed in here at:  https://researchingparalegal.com/2013/10/22/a-plan-to-stop-link-rot-forever-perma-cc/. You can easily subscribe to Perma.cc. The only problem I have encountered that it is still in beta stage and is not 100% reliable. If you encounter problems, the people who do the trouble-shooting respond quickly.-CCE

Electric Filing Order, Supreme Court of Texas: http://www.supreme.courts.state.tx.us/ebriefs/ebriefs.asp

New Hampshire Judicial Branch: http://www.courts.state.nh.us/supreme/ebriefs/ 

Electronic Briefs in Trial and Appellate Courts, Jurist: http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/courttech3.htm

California Courts – Electronic Filing/Submissions: http://www.courts.ca.gov/8872.htm

State of Connecticut Judicial Branch – E-Citation Procedures and Technical Standards: https://eservices.jud.ct.gov/Login.aspx?ReturnUrl=%2fdefault.aspx

 

Share this:

  • Print (Opens in new window) Print
  • Tweet
  • Email a link to a friend (Opens in new window) Email
  • Share on Tumblr
  • Pocket
  • More
  • Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit
  • Share on Telegram (Opens in new window) Telegram
Like Loading...

Federal Court Rules Oklahoma Same Sex Marriage is Constitutional.

14 Tuesday Jan 2014

Posted by Celia C. Elwell, RP in Constitution, Fourteenth Amendment Equal Protection

≈ Comments Off on Federal Court Rules Oklahoma Same Sex Marriage is Constitutional.

Tags

Carl Tobias, Defense of Marriage Act, Mary Fallin, Oklahoma, Same Sex Marriage, U.S. District Court Judge Terence Kern, U.S. District Judge Robert Shelby, U.S. Supreme Court, United States v. Windsor, Utah

Federal Judge: Oklahoma Ban On Same-Sex Marriage Unconstitutional, by Greg Botelho, CNN

 http://www.cnn.com/2014/01/14/justice/oklahoma-gay-marriage/

Oklahoma’s Governor, Mary Fallin, expressed her disappointment with the federal court’s ruling even though the Court’s decision was not a complete victory for same sex couples. -CCE

 A federal judge ruled Tuesday that an Oklahoma law limiting marriage to heterosexual couples violates the U.S. Constitution, giving yet another victory to same-sex marriage supporters.

U.S. District Court Judge Terence Kern said the court would not immediately enforce this ruling — therefore not opening the doors right away to marriages of gay and lesbian couples in Oklahoma — pending appeals. Still, he delivered a clear opinion on how the voter-approved Oklahoma state constitutional amendment relates to the U.S. Constitution.

‘The Court holds that Oklahoma’s constitutional amendment limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution,’ the judge wrote, saying that protection ‘is at the very heart of our legal system.’

Share this:

  • Print (Opens in new window) Print
  • Tweet
  • Email a link to a friend (Opens in new window) Email
  • Share on Tumblr
  • Pocket
  • More
  • Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit
  • Share on Telegram (Opens in new window) Telegram
Like Loading...

D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals Rules That FCC Regulations Are Outside the Agency’s Authority.

14 Tuesday Jan 2014

Posted by Celia C. Elwell, RP in Appellate Law, District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals, FCC, Government, Internet

≈ Comments Off on D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals Rules That FCC Regulations Are Outside the Agency’s Authority.

Tags

Brian Focht, Common Carrier, D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, FCC, Net Neutrality, The Cyber Advocate

Not Hyperbole: The Internet Won’t Be The Same Without Net Neutrality, by Brian Focht, The Cyber Advocate

http://tinyurl.com/lwlyubo

Today, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that key provisions of regulations promulgated by the FCC, referred to as the ‘Open Internet Rules’ (or ‘Net Neutrality’ to most), were outside the agency’s authority. Specifically, the court held that rules requiring broadband internet service providers to treat all internet traffic equally were beyond the FCC’s powers, because broadband providers are not considered ‘common carriers.’

Share this:

  • Print (Opens in new window) Print
  • Tweet
  • Email a link to a friend (Opens in new window) Email
  • Share on Tumblr
  • Pocket
  • More
  • Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit
  • Share on Telegram (Opens in new window) Telegram
Like Loading...

Supreme Court to Hear Landmark Case On President’s Authority.

12 Sunday Jan 2014

Posted by Celia C. Elwell, RP in Appellate Law, United States Supreme Court

≈ Comments Off on Supreme Court to Hear Landmark Case On President’s Authority.

Tags

Christian Science Monitor, President Bush, President Obama, Recess Appointments, Senate Rules, U.S. Senate, Warren Richey

Obama’s Recess Appointments: Supreme Court To Hear Landmark Case, by Warren Richey, Christian Science Monitor

http://tinyurl.com/k2lb5cd

Who has the authority to decide when the Senate is officially in session, the president or senators themselves? The Supreme Court Monday will hear a case focusing on President Obama’s recess appointments.

*     *     *

The case arises at a time of extreme partisan differences in Congress that have made it increasingly difficult for President Obama to fill vacant posts in his administration. Obstructionist tactics by Republicans are not new. The same tactics were used by Democrats – including then-Senator Obama – to block or delay appointments by President Bush.

But President Bush never sought to make recess appointments during pro forma Senate sessions. That action by President Obama marks a new level of executive defiance of the Senate.

Share this:

  • Print (Opens in new window) Print
  • Tweet
  • Email a link to a friend (Opens in new window) Email
  • Share on Tumblr
  • Pocket
  • More
  • Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit
  • Share on Telegram (Opens in new window) Telegram
Like Loading...

Nevada Supreme Court Amends Deposition Rules.

11 Saturday Jan 2014

Posted by Celia C. Elwell, RP in Court Rules, Depositions, Discovery, Nevada Supreme Court

≈ Comments Off on Nevada Supreme Court Amends Deposition Rules.

Tags

Compelling Discovery, Court Rules, Depositions, Michael P. Lowery, Nevada Supreme Court

Supreme Court Amends NRCP 30 & 34, by Michael P. Lowery, Compelling Discovery

http://www.compellingdiscovery.com/?p=2492

On December 19, 2013 the Supreme Court of Nevada issued an order amending NRCP 30 and 34. These amendments take effect March 1, 2014. This order in ADKT 0487 partially disposes of a multitude of proposed changes to Nevada’s discovery rules. ADKT 0487 remains open, meaning other changes are still possible in the future.

Share this:

  • Print (Opens in new window) Print
  • Tweet
  • Email a link to a friend (Opens in new window) Email
  • Share on Tumblr
  • Pocket
  • More
  • Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit
  • Share on Telegram (Opens in new window) Telegram
Like Loading...

Reinstatement of Suspended Attorneys With Unique Conditions.

11 Saturday Jan 2014

Posted by Celia C. Elwell, RP in Attorney Discipline, Kansas Supreme Court, Legal Ethics

≈ Comments Off on Reinstatement of Suspended Attorneys With Unique Conditions.

Tags

Attorney Reinstatement, Bar Discipline, Kansas Supreme Court, Legal Ethics, Legal Profession Blog, Mike Frisch

Reinstated With Conditions, by Mike Frisch, Legal Profession Blog

http://tinyurl.com/kb7g6ea

The Kansas Supreme Court has reinstated two suspended attorney, with unique and unusual conditions imposed on each. Of the two attorneys reinstated by the Kansas Supreme Court, one is still on federal criminal probation. The other attorney is limited to representing only criminal defendants. -CCE

Share this:

  • Print (Opens in new window) Print
  • Tweet
  • Email a link to a friend (Opens in new window) Email
  • Share on Tumblr
  • Pocket
  • More
  • Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit
  • Share on Telegram (Opens in new window) Telegram
Like Loading...

Authenticating Electronic Evidence Not Always As Straightforward As It Seems.

11 Saturday Jan 2014

Posted by Celia C. Elwell, RP in Admissibility, Emails, Evidence, Legal Technology, Texas Supreme Court, Trial Tips and Techniques

≈ Comments Off on Authenticating Electronic Evidence Not Always As Straightforward As It Seems.

Tags

Colin Miller, Electronic Evidence, Email, Evidence, EvidProf Blog, Texas Court of Appeals

You’ve Got Mail: Court of Appeals of Texas Finds Alleged E-Mail From Victim’s Mother Improperly Authenticated, by Colin Miller, EvidenceProf Blog

http://tinyurl.com/q8avp97

There are many ways to authenticate electronic evidence. But this, says the Texas Court of Appeals, is not one of them. -CCE

Share this:

  • Print (Opens in new window) Print
  • Tweet
  • Email a link to a friend (Opens in new window) Email
  • Share on Tumblr
  • Pocket
  • More
  • Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit
  • Share on Telegram (Opens in new window) Telegram
Like Loading...

Judges and Political Campaign Contributions in Pennsylvania.

11 Saturday Jan 2014

Posted by Celia C. Elwell, RP in Appellate Law, Campaign Contributions, Judges, Massachusetts Supreme Court, State Appellate Courts

≈ Comments Off on Judges and Political Campaign Contributions in Pennsylvania.

Tags

Campaign Contributions, Daniel Cummins, Drug and Device Law, James M. Beck, Judges, Judicial Campaigns, Massachusetts Supreme Court, Recusal, Reed Smith, TORT TALK

Campaign Contributions and Judicial Recusal in Pennsylvania, by James M. Beck, Drug and Device Law (with hat tip to Daniel Cummins, TORT TALK)

http://tinyurl.com/kpoy6w8

Have you ever been hammered in court, and then learn that the judge has received large – maybe Texas-sized – political campaign contributions from opposing counsel?  We have, and it’s not a good feeling.

Share this:

  • Print (Opens in new window) Print
  • Tweet
  • Email a link to a friend (Opens in new window) Email
  • Share on Tumblr
  • Pocket
  • More
  • Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit
  • Share on Telegram (Opens in new window) Telegram
Like Loading...

Texas Supreme Court Embraces Email and Amends Civil Procedure Rules.

08 Wednesday Jan 2014

Posted by Celia C. Elwell, RP in Court Orders, Court Rules, Emails, Legal Technology, Texas Supreme Court, Trial Tips and Techniques

≈ Comments Off on Texas Supreme Court Embraces Email and Amends Civil Procedure Rules.

Tags

Civil Procedure, Frank O. Carroll III, Proof of Service, Redaction, Signature Blocks, TexAppBlog, Texas Supreme Court

Texas Supreme Court Decides Email is Here to Stay, Amends Rules of Civil Procedure Accordingly, by Frank O. Carroll III, TexAppBlog

http://tinyurl.com/jwrwy7u

When it comes to civil courts in Texas, the theme for 2013 was “fast-tracking.” The Texas Rules of Civil Procedure saw a number of changes related to triaging and expediting low-dollar controversies and eliminating “frivolous” cases early in the litigation process. While limiting requests for production and depositions in cases under $100,000 is all well and good, civil courts in Texas face much greater problems on a day-to-day basis.

One such problem is the underutilization of technology. Before 2014, email didn’t exist as far as the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure were concerned, electronic filing by fax was the equivalent of placing an envelope in the mail, and FedEx was a great way to send birthday gifts, but an unacceptable way to send discovery requests. But a new day has dawned, and 2014 is upon us…

Share this:

  • Print (Opens in new window) Print
  • Tweet
  • Email a link to a friend (Opens in new window) Email
  • Share on Tumblr
  • Pocket
  • More
  • Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit
  • Share on Telegram (Opens in new window) Telegram
Like Loading...

Ralph Losey’s Top E-Discovery Case of 2013.

29 Sunday Dec 2013

Posted by Celia C. Elwell, RP in 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, Discovery, E-Discovery, Preservation, Sanctions, Texas Supreme Court

≈ Comments Off on Ralph Losey’s Top E-Discovery Case of 2013.

Tags

E-Discovery, e-Discovery Team® Blog, Electronic discovery, ESI, Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, Preservation, Ralph Losey, Sanctions

Announcing My Top e-Discovery Case of 2013, by Ralph Losey, e-Discovery Team® Blog

Seal for the United States Fifth Circuit court...

http://tinyurl.com/mqrqv3d

The year 2013 has been a relatively lackluster one for e-discovery case law. Then, on November 12, 2013, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals rendered a rare appellate order on sanctions and e-discovery abuse.

Share this:

  • Print (Opens in new window) Print
  • Tweet
  • Email a link to a friend (Opens in new window) Email
  • Share on Tumblr
  • Pocket
  • More
  • Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit
  • Share on Telegram (Opens in new window) Telegram
Like Loading...

Texas’ Backlog of Federal Judicial Vacancies.

29 Sunday Dec 2013

Posted by Celia C. Elwell, RP in 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, Judges, Texas Supreme Court

≈ Comments Off on Texas’ Backlog of Federal Judicial Vacancies.

Tags

Federal Judges, How Appealing, Howard Bashman, Judges, Nuclear option, Senate, Texas Supreme Court, United States Senate, White House

English: Seal of Texas

Senate’s ‘Nuclear Option’ Won’t Help Clear Backlog Of Texas Judicial Vacancies, by Todd J. Gillman, The Dallas Morning News (with hat tip to Howard Bashman, How Appealing Blog!)

http://tinyurl.com/mxklpsw

Federal courts that handle Texas cases have nine vacancies and until last week, no nominees, accounting for more than 20 percent of empty benches nationwide. One of those came open more than five years ago.

The predictable result: backlogs and delays, especially in civil cases.

“The nuclear option will not change the logjam. The White House is not going to nominate anyone from Texas until it’s clear the senators will approve them,” said Royal Furgeson, dean of the University of North Texas Law School in Dallas, planned to open next year.

He called the persistent vacancies ‘a giant problem,’ and he would know; he’s the judge who stepped down in November 2008 from a San Antonio trial court.

Share this:

  • Print (Opens in new window) Print
  • Tweet
  • Email a link to a friend (Opens in new window) Email
  • Share on Tumblr
  • Pocket
  • More
  • Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit
  • Share on Telegram (Opens in new window) Telegram
Like Loading...

Heads’ Up! A Summary of the New Oklahoma Supreme Court Rule.

19 Thursday Dec 2013

Posted by Celia C. Elwell, RP in Appellate Law, Case Law, Citations, Court Rules, Legal Writing, Oklahoma Civil Appellate Procedure, Oklahoma Supreme Court, Research

≈ Comments Off on Heads’ Up! A Summary of the New Oklahoma Supreme Court Rule.

Tags

Appellate Procedure, Citations, Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals, Oklahoma Supreme Court, Oklahoma Supreme Court Network, OSCN

IN RE OFFICIAL PUBLICATION OF DECISIONS, SCAD-2013-63, 2013 OK 109, Decided 12/16/2013

http://www.oscn.net/applications/oscn/deliverdocument.asp?citeid=472452

There is a new official publisher of court opinions in town, and it’s not West Publishing.

On January 1, 2014, Rule 1.200 in Title 12 goes into effect. All Oklahoma practitioners should take note of this new rule affecting appellate procedure and citation format.

The Oklahoma Supreme Court becomes the “official” publisher of the Oklahoma Supreme Court and the Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals. Whenever either the Supreme Court or the Court of Civil Appeals files an opinion with the Court Clerk, the opinion is published that same day on the home page of OSCN, the Oklahoma Supreme Court Network (http://www.oscn.net).

West Publishing Company, which had been the “official” publisher since January 2, 1954, will remain an “unofficial publisher,” along with the Oklahoma Bar Journal and other publications. Regardless, a parallel citation to the Pacific Reporter, a West publication, is still required by this rule.

If you practice in Oklahoma, you may recall when the Supreme Court started using its public domain citation form in 1997. This is now the required citation format – with some new tweaks.  Among the new requirements are citations to the opinion’s paragraph for spot citations.

The Court also addresses how it will publish Memorandum Opinions and Unpublished Opinions. For the first time, a party or individual who believes an unpublished opinion of the Supreme Court or Court of Appeals has “substantial precedential value” may ask the Court to publish that opinion. Opinions designated for publication only in the Oklahoma Bar Journal (“For Publication in O.B.J”) may not be cited as precedent.

The Rule provides examples of the new variations of the required changes in citation format. The examples are logical, and easy to understand. If you wish to make a positive impression with either Court, I would follow these changes precisely. -CCE

Share this:

  • Print (Opens in new window) Print
  • Tweet
  • Email a link to a friend (Opens in new window) Email
  • Share on Tumblr
  • Pocket
  • More
  • Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit
  • Share on Telegram (Opens in new window) Telegram
Like Loading...

Oklahoma Supreme Court Upholds Constitutionality of Controversial Workers’ Compensation Law

17 Tuesday Dec 2013

Posted by Celia C. Elwell, RP in Employment Law, Oklahoma Supreme Court, Workers' Compensation

≈ Comments Off on Oklahoma Supreme Court Upholds Constitutionality of Controversial Workers’ Compensation Law

Tags

Oklahoma Supreme Court, Randy Ellis, Workers' Compensation

Oklahoma Supreme Court Upholds New Workers’ Compensation Law, by Randy Ellis, NewsOK

http://tinyurl.com/mg65yfj

 

Share this:

  • Print (Opens in new window) Print
  • Tweet
  • Email a link to a friend (Opens in new window) Email
  • Share on Tumblr
  • Pocket
  • More
  • Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit
  • Share on Telegram (Opens in new window) Telegram
Like Loading...

Oklahoma Supreme Court Changes Its Mind on Tribal Sovereignty.

11 Wednesday Dec 2013

Posted by Celia C. Elwell, RP in Gaming Law, Jurisdiction, Macros, Native American Law, Oklahoma Supreme Court, Tax Law, Tribal Sovereignty, Venue

≈ Comments Off on Oklahoma Supreme Court Changes Its Mind on Tribal Sovereignty.

Tags

Crowe & Dunlevy, Dram Shop, Tribal Gaming, Tribal Sovereighnty

Oklahoma Supreme Court Does An About-Face on Tribal Sovereignty–Strikes Down Jurisdiction for Tort and Prize Claim and Dram-Shop Lawsuits, by Gerald L. Jackson, Crowe & Dunlevy

http://tinyurl.com/p946bdg

In a significant reversal of several recent decisions, the Oklahoma Supreme Court adopted the position that “courts of competent jurisdiction” in the model gaming compact does not include Oklahoma state courts and that tribes are immune from dram-shop liability in state court unless the tribe expressly waives its sovereignty immunity.

Share this:

  • Print (Opens in new window) Print
  • Tweet
  • Email a link to a friend (Opens in new window) Email
  • Share on Tumblr
  • Pocket
  • More
  • Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit
  • Share on Telegram (Opens in new window) Telegram
Like Loading...

Legislative History’s Importance in Legal Writing.

10 Tuesday Dec 2013

Posted by Celia C. Elwell, RP in Appellate Law, Legal Writing, Legislative History

≈ Comments Off on Legislative History’s Importance in Legal Writing.

Tags

Kathleen Trafford, Legal Writing, Legislative History, Ohio Lawyer, Ohio State Bar, Porter Wright, Supreme Court

From Ohio Lawyer: The importance of legislative history in Supreme Court decisions, by Porter Wright

http://tinyurl.com/kvtcp9m

Kathleen Trafford, a partner in Porter Wright’s Litigation Department, published the article “The importance of legislative history in Supreme Court decisions” in the September/October issue of Ohio Lawyer, the magazine of the Ohio State Bar Association. 

Share this:

  • Print (Opens in new window) Print
  • Tweet
  • Email a link to a friend (Opens in new window) Email
  • Share on Tumblr
  • Pocket
  • More
  • Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit
  • Share on Telegram (Opens in new window) Telegram
Like Loading...

Texas Moves To Its New E-Filing Website.

06 Friday Dec 2013

Posted by Celia C. Elwell, RP in Courts, E-Filing, Texas Supreme Court

≈ Comments Off on Texas Moves To Its New E-Filing Website.

Tags

Courts, E-Filing, EFILETEXAS.gov, Texas Supreme Court

We’ve moved! New e-filing website goes live, posted by Angela Morris, Texas Lawyer in Texas Law

http://shererandcrow.com/texas-law/weve-moved-new-e-filing-website-goes-live/

The state’s new system for electronically filing court documents has a new online home: EFileTexas.gov went live today, Dec. 6.

Starting Monday, the old site to access the e-filing system will go offline and anyone who visits TexFile.com will automatically be rerouted to EFileTexas.gov, according to a notice on TexFile.com.

 

Share this:

  • Print (Opens in new window) Print
  • Tweet
  • Email a link to a friend (Opens in new window) Email
  • Share on Tumblr
  • Pocket
  • More
  • Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit
  • Share on Telegram (Opens in new window) Telegram
Like Loading...

The Sixth Circuit Wrestles With When to Pull the Trigger on the Unconscionability Doctrine in Arbitration Clauses.

30 Saturday Nov 2013

Posted by Celia C. Elwell, RP in Appellate Law, Arbitration, Class Actions, LexisNexis, Research, Trial Tips and Techniques

≈ Comments Off on The Sixth Circuit Wrestles With When to Pull the Trigger on the Unconscionability Doctrine in Arbitration Clauses.

Tags

Arbitrations, Class Action, ContractsProf Blog, D.A. Jeremy Telman, LexisNexis, Unconscionability Doctrin

Sixth Circuit Affirms District Court, Rejects Attorney’s Bid for Class-Wide Arbitration, by Kprofs2013, edited by D.A. Jeremy Telman, ContractsProf Blog

http://tinyurl.com/p9sryqw

This case started as a disagreement between a law firm and LexisNexis over billing practices. The parties’ disagreement was bound by an arbitration agreement. The law firm decided to bring two class actions over 500 million dollars against LexisNexis. The terms of the arbitration agreement and the lack of any definitive U.S. Supreme Court ruling on whether classwide arbitrability is a “gateway” or “subsidiary” question places the Sixth Circuit in an interesting conundrum.

What follows in this post at ContractsProf Blog is an analysis of the Sixth Court’s opinion, the ambiguous arbitration agreement, and the use, or lack thereof, of the unconscionability doctrine. -CCE 

Share this:

  • Print (Opens in new window) Print
  • Tweet
  • Email a link to a friend (Opens in new window) Email
  • Share on Tumblr
  • Pocket
  • More
  • Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit
  • Share on Telegram (Opens in new window) Telegram
Like Loading...

Court Precludes Testimony of Rehabilitation Witness

30 Saturday Nov 2013

Posted by Celia C. Elwell, RP in Admissibility, Appellate Law, Court Rules, Cross-Examination, Direct Examination, Evidence, Research, Tennessee Supreme Court, Trial Tips and Techniques

≈ Comments Off on Court Precludes Testimony of Rehabilitation Witness

Tags

Pyle v. Mullins, Rehabilitation, Rule 608, Tennessee Supreme Court, Witness

Reputable Source?: Court of Appeals of Tennessee Precludes Testimony of Rehabilitation Witness Under Rule 608(a), by Evidence ProfBlogger, EvidenceProf Blog

http://tinyurl.com/lnf96hp

In Pyle v. Mullins, 2013 WL 6181956 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2013), the plaintiff sought to bolster his credibility after it had been attacked by the defense, but the court precluded this rehabilitation. Why?

Pyle then sought to elicit

character testimony from Jeff Boggan, one of Pyle’s customers. Boggan, a resident of Village Green Subdivision, testified Pyle mowed his lawn and he had known Pyle for 5 years. He testified Pyle was under contract by the homeowner’s association to mow all of the lawns in the subdivision. Pyle asked Boggan whether he was “familiar with [Pyle’s] reputation in that area for honesty?” In response, defense counsel objected as to relevance. The trial court sustained the objection.

Then . . . .

 

Share this:

  • Print (Opens in new window) Print
  • Tweet
  • Email a link to a friend (Opens in new window) Email
  • Share on Tumblr
  • Pocket
  • More
  • Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit
  • Share on Telegram (Opens in new window) Telegram
Like Loading...

Michigan Court of Claims Changed Rule for Cases Against the State of Michigan.

27 Wednesday Nov 2013

Posted by Celia C. Elwell, RP in Appellate Law, Court Rules, Jurisdiction, Michigan Supreme Court, Trial Tips and Techniques, Venue

≈ Comments Off on Michigan Court of Claims Changed Rule for Cases Against the State of Michigan.

Tags

Amy Ronayne Krause, Deborah Servitto, Ingham County Michigan, James Woolard Jr., Michigan Court of Appeals, MillerCanfield, Pat Donofrio, Paul Hudson, State of Michigan

Significant Changes for Michigan Court of Claims, Paul Hudson, James Woolard, Jr., MillerCanfield

http://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/significant-changes-for-michigan-court-o-20324/ 

Parties engaged in litigation against the State of Michigan in the Court of Claims will do so under new jurisdictional rules that were signed into law on November 12, 2013. The law, PA 164, moves the Court of Claims from the Ingham County Circuit Court to the Court of Appeals, where cases will be assigned to one of four designated judges. Those judges are Pat Donofrio (Troy), Deborah Servitto (Troy), Michael Talbot (Detroit) and Amy Ronayne Krause (Lansing). Their terms on the Court of Claims end in May 2015.

The new law takes effect immediately.

Share this:

  • Print (Opens in new window) Print
  • Tweet
  • Email a link to a friend (Opens in new window) Email
  • Share on Tumblr
  • Pocket
  • More
  • Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit
  • Share on Telegram (Opens in new window) Telegram
Like Loading...

Opponents Ask Oklahoma Supreme Court To Declare New Workers’ Compensation Law Unconstitutional.

26 Tuesday Nov 2013

Posted by Celia C. Elwell, RP in Oklahoma Supreme Court, Workers' Compensation

≈ Comments Off on Opponents Ask Oklahoma Supreme Court To Declare New Workers’ Compensation Law Unconstitutional.

Tags

Firefighter, Nolan Clay, Oklahoma Supreme Court, Oklahoman, Unconstitutional, Workers' Compensation

Seal of Oklahoma.

Oklahoma workers’ comp law challenged, by Nolan Clay, The Oklahoman, NEWSOK

http://newsok.com/oklahoma-workers-comp-law-challenged/article/3884295

 In May 2013, Oklahoma’s Governor passed a new controversial workers’ compensation law, in spite of opponents’ arguments that the change will reduce an injured employee’s benefits. The bill passed by the Governor changed Oklahoma’s workers’ compensation judicial system to a “business friendly” administrative system. The new law, which goes into effect on February 1, 2013, allows a business to “opt out” if it provides an injured worker with benefits considered equal to what would have received under the administrative system. The Oklahoma Supreme Court is now being asked to declare the new law unconstitutional. CCE

Share this:

  • Print (Opens in new window) Print
  • Tweet
  • Email a link to a friend (Opens in new window) Email
  • Share on Tumblr
  • Pocket
  • More
  • Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit
  • Share on Telegram (Opens in new window) Telegram
Like Loading...

Trial of Historical Patent for Common Web Encryption of SSL in East Texas.

24 Sunday Nov 2013

Posted by Celia C. Elwell, RP in E-Discovery, Evidence, Intellectual Property, Legal Technology, Patent Law, Texas Supreme Court, Trial Tips and Techniques

≈ Comments Off on Trial of Historical Patent for Common Web Encryption of SSL in East Texas.

Tags

Amazon, Dennis Crouch, East Texas, Encryption, Erich Spangenberg, Michael Jones, Newegg, Patent, Ron Rivest, SSL, TQP

Newegg on trial: Mystery company TQP rewrites the history of encryption, by Joe Mullin, Law & Disorder/Civilization & Discontents (with hat tip to Dennis Crouch’s Patently-O!)

http://tinyurl.com/

The story of Michael Jones, his mysterious invention, and the massive patent enforcer he’s working with is finally coming out at a patent trial underway in this small East Texas town.

Jones’ patent, now owned by famed patent enforcer Erich Spangenberg, has scared corporate America into writing one hefty check after another to avoid a trial just like this one. He and his lawyers say the patent covers the common web encryption scheme of SSL combined with the RC4 algorithm. The sums of those checks were revealed in court here on Tuesday when a TQP attorney displayed to the jury a spreadsheet with many of the payments.

Share this:

  • Print (Opens in new window) Print
  • Tweet
  • Email a link to a friend (Opens in new window) Email
  • Share on Tumblr
  • Pocket
  • More
  • Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit
  • Share on Telegram (Opens in new window) Telegram
Like Loading...
← Older posts
Newer posts →
Follow The Researching Paralegal on WordPress.com

Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Search

Sign In/Register

  • Create account
  • Log in
  • Entries feed
  • Comments feed
  • WordPress.com

Categories

Archives

  • June 2024
  • March 2022
  • January 2022
  • November 2021
  • October 2021
  • January 2021
  • November 2020
  • October 2020
  • September 2020
  • August 2020
  • June 2020
  • May 2020
  • April 2020
  • January 2020
  • December 2019
  • October 2019
  • August 2019
  • July 2019
  • May 2019
  • March 2019
  • January 2019
  • December 2018
  • November 2018
  • October 2018
  • September 2018
  • August 2018
  • July 2018
  • June 2018
  • May 2018
  • April 2018
  • March 2018
  • February 2018
  • December 2017
  • November 2017
  • October 2017
  • September 2017
  • August 2017
  • July 2017
  • June 2017
  • May 2017
  • April 2017
  • March 2017
  • February 2017
  • January 2017
  • December 2016
  • November 2016
  • October 2016
  • September 2016
  • August 2016
  • July 2016
  • June 2016
  • May 2016
  • April 2016
  • March 2016
  • February 2016
  • January 2016
  • December 2015
  • November 2015
  • October 2015
  • September 2015
  • August 2015
  • July 2015
  • June 2015
  • May 2015
  • April 2015
  • March 2015
  • February 2015
  • January 2015
  • December 2014
  • November 2014
  • October 2014
  • September 2014
  • August 2014
  • July 2014
  • June 2014
  • May 2014
  • April 2014
  • March 2014
  • February 2014
  • January 2014
  • December 2013
  • November 2013
  • October 2013

Recent Comments

lawyersonia's avatarlawyersonia on In Custodia Legis – Lega…
Eric Voigt's avatarEric Voigt on Top 20 Paralegal Blogs, Websit…
profvoigt's avatarprofvoigt on Research Guides in Focus – Mun…
Make Your PDF Docume… on Make Your PDF Document Edit-Pr…
madlaw291282999's avatarmadlaw291282999 on Using Hyperbole -Are You Riski…

Recent Comments

lawyersonia's avatarlawyersonia on In Custodia Legis – Lega…
Eric Voigt's avatarEric Voigt on Top 20 Paralegal Blogs, Websit…
profvoigt's avatarprofvoigt on Research Guides in Focus – Mun…
Make Your PDF Docume… on Make Your PDF Document Edit-Pr…
madlaw291282999's avatarmadlaw291282999 on Using Hyperbole -Are You Riski…
  • RSS - Posts
  • RSS - Comments

Blog at WordPress.com.

  • Subscribe Subscribed
    • The Researching Paralegal
    • Join 460 other subscribers
    • Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.
    • The Researching Paralegal
    • Subscribe Subscribed
    • Sign up
    • Log in
    • Report this content
    • View site in Reader
    • Manage subscriptions
    • Collapse this bar
 

Loading Comments...
 

You must be logged in to post a comment.

    %d