11 Saturday Jan 2014
Posted in Court Rules, Depositions, Discovery, Nevada Supreme Court
≈ Comments Off on Nevada Supreme Court Amends Deposition Rules.
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.
11 Saturday Jan 2014
Posted 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
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
11 Saturday Jan 2014
Posted 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.
You’ve Got Mail: Court of Appeals of Texas Finds Alleged E-Mail From Victim’s Mother Improperly Authenticated, by Colin Miller, EvidenceProf Blog
There are many ways to authenticate electronic evidence. But this, says the Texas Court of Appeals, is not one of them. -CCE
11 Saturday Jan 2014
Posted 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)
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.
08 Wednesday Jan 2014
Posted 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
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…
29 Sunday Dec 2013
Posted 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
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.
29 Sunday Dec 2013
Posted 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
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!)
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.
19 Thursday Dec 2013
Posted 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
17 Tuesday Dec 2013
Posted in Employment Law, Oklahoma Supreme Court, Workers' Compensation
≈ Comments Off on Oklahoma Supreme Court Upholds Constitutionality of Controversial Workers’ Compensation Law
Oklahoma Supreme Court Upholds New Workers’ Compensation Law, by Randy Ellis, NewsOK
11 Wednesday Dec 2013
Posted 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.
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
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.
06 Friday Dec 2013
Posted in Courts, E-Filing, Texas Supreme Court
≈ Comments Off on Texas Moves To Its New E-Filing Website.
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.
30 Saturday Nov 2013
Posted 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
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 . . . .
27 Wednesday Nov 2013
Posted 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
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.
26 Tuesday Nov 2013
Posted 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
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
24 Sunday Nov 2013
Posted 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!)
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.
23 Saturday Nov 2013
Posted in Depositions, Discovery, Judges, Legal Writing, Subpoenas, Texas Supreme Court
≈ Comments Off on Judge Sparks on Fire — Again.
Tags
Above the Law (blog), David Lat, Depositions, Discovery, Judge Sam Sparks, Law Practice, Privilege and Confidentiality, Subpoenas, U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas
Benchslap of the Day: Judge Sparks Burns More Attorneys , by By David Lat, Above the Law
Mr. Lat shared this excerpt from the Judge’s Order:
[J]udge Sparks invited lawyers to a hearing that he referred to as a ‘kindergarten party.’ According to the ‘invitation’ — er, order — ‘[t]he party will feature many exciting and informative lessons, including… how to enter into reasonable agreements about deposition dates [and] how to limit depositions to reasonable subject matter.’ The event is aimed at lawyers who ‘are unable to practice law at the level of a first year law student.’
13 Wednesday Nov 2013
Posted in Appellate Law, Court Rules, Legal Technology, Legal Writing, Research, State Appellate Courts, Trial Tips and Techniques
≈ Comments Off on The Civil Appeals Profile Database for State Courts.
Tags
Appeals, Civil Appeal State Profiles, Civil Appellate Procedure, National Center for State Courts
The National Center for State Court has created this compilation of civil appellate court practices and procedures.
The link takes you to a map of the United States. Click on your state, and you will get a breakdown of appellate procedures. The information is somewhat like a “cheat sheet” for the state’s rules of appellate procedure.
Please note that the website recommends setting your printer to “landscape” for best results.
30 Wednesday Oct 2013
Posted in Appellate Law, Oklahoma Supreme Court, State Appellate Courts, United States Supreme Court
≈ Comments Off on Oklahoma Supreme Court Rules That 2011 State Abortion Law Violates Constitution
State Court Deems Law Wide Attack on Abortion, by Adam Liptak, The New York Times (with hat tip to Howard Bashman, How Appealing Blog!)
http://perma.cc/0pTyFyfurD4
In Oklahoma Coalition For Reproductive Justice v. Cline, 2012 OK 102,
292 P.3d 27, all Justices of the Oklahoma Supreme Court concurred in a per curium opinion that this legal issue is controlled by Planned Parenthood v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992).
The Oklahoma Supreme Court held:
The challenged measure is facially unconstitutional pursuant to Casey, 505 U.S. 833. The mandate of Casey remains binding on this Court until and unless the United States Supreme Court holds to the contrary. The judgment of the trial court holding the enactment unconstitutional is affirmed and the measure is stricken in its entirety.
29 Tuesday Oct 2013
Posted in 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, Appellate Law, State Appellate Courts, Texas Supreme Court
≈ Comments Off on Yes, You Can. No, You Can’t. The Latest Abortion Battle in Texas.
Judge in Texas Partly Rejects Abortion Law, by Erik Eckholm, The New York Times
http://nyti.ms/Hon5aE
But not so fast . . . .
Texas attorney general asks court to reinstate abortion measure, by Karen Brooks, Reuters, in Chicago Tribune
http://trib.in/17qFgZx
The Researching Paralegal 
You must be logged in to post a comment.