Journalist’s Guide to Federal Courts.

17 Thursday Apr 2014

Posted by Celia C. Elwell, RP in Bankruptcy Law, Courts, U.S. Courts of Appeal, United States Supreme Court

≈ Comments Off on Journalist’s Guide to Federal Courts.

Tags

Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, Bankruptcy Courts, Federal Appellate Courts, Federal Courts, Federal District Court, Journalists

A Journalist’s Guide to the Federal Courts, Administrative Office of the United States Courts

http://www.uscourts.gov/News/JournalistsGuide.aspx

Federal judges and the journalists who cover them share much common ground. One clear area of mutual interest is accurate and informed coverage of federal courts. A Journalist’s Guide to the Federal Courts is intended to assist reporters assigned to court coverage. It is the media who inform and educate the public about the courts, spark discussion and debate about their work, instill public trust and confidence in the institution and its function, and help protect judicial independence. These are worthwhile and important pursuits.

There are justifiable and distinct differences between the three branches of government and the access they grant the news media. Most of the work of federal courts is performed in open court and decisions, and in most cases court filings are available on the Internet. This primer is aimed at helping reporters who cover federal appellate, district, and bankruptcy courts – the cases, the people, and the process.

Download full report (pdf)

Latest U.S. Supreme Court Opinion Rejects Campaign Spending Limits.

05 Saturday Apr 2014

Posted by Celia C. Elwell, RP in Appellate Judges, Campaign Contributions, Government, Judges, United States Supreme Court

≈ Comments Off on Latest U.S. Supreme Court Opinion Rejects Campaign Spending Limits.

Tags

Campaign Finance, Citizens United, FRONTLINE, Lawrence Hurley, PBS, ProPublica, Republican National Committee, Reuters, Super PACs, U.S. Supreme Court

Supreme Court’s Rejection Of U.S. Campaign Funding Limits Opens Door For Big-Money Donors, by Lawrence Hurley, Reuters with additional reporting by David Morgan, Gabriel Debenedetti, Andy Sullivan and Jeff Mason; Editing by David Lindsey, Howard Goller and Dan Grebler

http://tinyurl.com/qhhqf9e

The U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday struck down a key pillar of federal campaign finance law by allowing donors to give money to as many political candidates, parties and committees as they wish.

In the latest in a series of decisions by the high court that have given big-money donors more influence in U.S. elections, the justices rejected the overall limits on how much individuals can donate during a federal two-year election cycle. . . .

And

Big Sky, Big Money, FRONTLINE in collaboration with PBS Election Marketplace (video) (related to Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission)

http://tinyurl.com/laou3aq

You will find additional links related to the post above by ProPublica and FRONTLINE on the same page. -CCE

Duty to Arbitrate Survives End of Employment Contracts.

05 Saturday Apr 2014

Posted by Celia C. Elwell, RP in Arbitration, Arbitration, Collective Bargaining, Employment Contracts, Employment Law, Fair Labor Standards Act, United States Supreme Court

≈ Comments Off on Duty to Arbitrate Survives End of Employment Contracts.

Tags

Arbitration, Baker & Hostetler, Class Action, Employment Contract, FLSA, Gregory V. Mersol, Mortgage Loan Officers, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, U.S. Supreme Court

Sixth Circuit Holds That Duty To Arbitrate Survives Expiration Of Employment Contract, Requires Individual Arbitration, by Gregory V. Mersol, Baker & Hostetler

http://tinyurl.com/q7yg9s5

With the Supreme Court having issued a series of decisions overruling many of the roadblocks to the enforcement of arbitration agreements in the class context, we are now seeing more courts fill in the gaps as to whether and when employers may rely on such agreements.

The latest of these is the case of Huffman v. The Hilltop Companies, LLC, Case No. 13-3938 (6th Cir. Mar. 27, 2014), which concerned the question of whether the duty to arbitrate and limits to class arbitration extend beyond termination. In one respect, the decision was obvious, but in another, it represents the growing, if at time reluctant, acceptance by courts of the enforceability of arbitration agreements. . . .

Twenty-Five Years Ago, How Sexual Harassment Went Mainstream.

23 Sunday Mar 2014

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

≈ Comments Off on Twenty-Five Years Ago, How Sexual Harassment Went Mainstream.

Tags

Anita Hill, Anita: Speaking Truth to Power, Clarence Thomas, Freida Lee Mock, Sexual harassment, U.S. Senate Judiciary committee, U.S. Supreme Court

New Anita Hill Film Recalls When Sexual Harassment Went Mainstream, by Claire Suddath, Bloomberg Businessweek

http://tinyurl.com/o62jkwl

Twenty-five years ago, a University of Oklahoma Law School professor told the U.S. Senate Judiciary committee about the time her former boss put pubic hair on a Coke can. She talked about the kind of pornography he told her he watched, how he bragged about his penis size, and the 10 or so times he asked her on dates even though he was her boss. At one point, the nickname “Long Dong Silver” came up. For three days in October 1991, all anyone could talk about was Anita Hill, Clarence Thomas, and which one of them was lying.

There was a salacious absurdity to the Anita Hill hearings that, when we look back on them now, makes us cringe. Did we really listen to Senator Howell Heflin, Democrat from Alabama, ask a 35-year-old tenured law professor if she was “a scorned woman?” But sometimes it takes outrageous acts to force us to examine uncomfortable truths. For better or worse, Anita Hill forced America to start thinking about sexual harassment. On March 21, Anita: Speaking Truth to Power, a documentary by Academy Award–winning filmmaker Freida Lee Mock, will make us think about it again. . . .

Journalist’s Guide to the Federal Courts.

18 Tuesday Feb 2014

Posted by Celia C. Elwell, RP in Appellate Law, U.S. Courts of Appeal, United States Supreme Court

≈ Comments Off on Journalist’s Guide to the Federal Courts.

Tags

A Journalist's Guide to the Federal Courts, Federal Judges, Journalists, Media, United States Courts

A Journalist’s Guide to the Federal Courts, United States Courts

http://www.uscourts.gov/News/JournalistsGuide.aspx

Federal judges and the journalists who cover them share much common ground. One clear area of mutual interest is accurate and informed coverage of federal courts. A Journalist’s Guide to the Federal Courts is intended to assist reporters assigned to court coverage. It is the media who inform and educate the public about the courts, spark discussion and debate about their work, instill public trust and confidence in the institution and its function, and help protect judicial independence. These are worthwhile and important pursuits.

There are justifiable and distinct differences between the three branches of government and the access they grant the news media. Most of the work of federal courts is performed in open court and decisions, and in most cases court filings are available on the Internet. This primer is aimed at helping reporters who cover federal appellate, district, and bankruptcy courts – the cases, the people, and the process.

Got Your Gun? OSBI Launched Self-Defense Act License Online Application System.

16 Sunday Feb 2014

Posted by Celia C. Elwell, RP in Constitution, Second Amendment

≈ Comments Off on Got Your Gun? OSBI Launched Self-Defense Act License Online Application System.

Tags

eGovernment, Gun Control, Handgun License, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State Bureau of Investigation, Online Gun License, OSBI, Second Amendment, Self-Defense Act

Oklahoma State Bureau of Investigation Offers Online Gun License Application, OK.gov

http://tinyurl.com/m86brv3

Applying for an Oklahoma gun license just got easier. The Oklahoma State Bureau of Investigation (OSBI) has launched the Self-Defense Act (SDA) License Online Application system. The system allows users to submit applications to apply for or renew a handgun license. The online application can be accessed on the OSBI website at http://www.ok.gov/osbi.

Last year, more than 60,000 Oklahomans applied for a gun license. To deal with the influx of applications, OSBI hired more temporary and full-time staff for the unit and added a night shift. The online application will expedite and streamline the process.

The online service is a product of a partnership between the Oklahoma State Bureau of Investigation and OK.gov, Oklahoma’s official website managed by the eGovernment firm, NIC Inc. (Nasdaq: EGOV). The actual launch date of the online application system was January 14, 2014. . . .

Federal Court Rejects Portland’s Panhandling Ordinance.

15 Saturday Feb 2014

Posted by Celia C. Elwell, RP in Constitution, First Amendment, Municipal Code, Municipal Law, Panhandling

≈ Comments Off on Federal Court Rejects Portland’s Panhandling Ordinance.

Tags

Anti-Camping, First Amendment, Homeless, Mayor Charlie Hales, Muncipality, Oregon, Panhandlers, Portland, U.S. Constitution, U.S. District Judge George Z. Singal

Our View: Rejection Of Median-Strip Panhandling Ban Right Call For Portland, Portland Press Herald

http://tinyurl.com/l6o3gdp

It is estimated that 4,000 homeless people sleep on Portland’s streets. Portland’s Mayor Charlie Hales has been taking various measures since last summer to address with Portland’s homeless situation. Mayor Hales has said he wants to crack down on homeless camps by increasing homeless shelters, but has not set any specific amount for pay for shelters.

The Mayor’s anti-camping law allows police to “sweep” homeless on sidewalks. In a “sweep,” the police discard the homeless’ few possessions, including warm clothing and blankets, in spite of the number of homeless who have frozen to death.

Mayor Hales says this law is not about homelessness but about lawlessness. Unfortunately for Mayor Hales, his actions have galvanized grass roots protesters to head this week towards City Hall with – literally – pitchforks and torches.

To the Portland Police Department’s credit, it responded to the recent extremely cold conditions by moving people to shelter. The Fire Department also did its part to help. Normally around 1,000 shelter beds are available for the homeless, but various agencies, such as the Red Cross, provided 350 more shelter beds.

This will, I hope, give you an idea of the scope of the homeless situation in Portland, the struggle to address it, and set the stage for the case discussed in this post from the Portland Press Herald. An ordinance forbidding panhandling purportedly to address “public safety” has been struck down by a federal judge in support of the First Amendment. -CCE

There is something disturbing about seeing men and women standing near the roadway holding signs and asking for help. It’s hard to ignore a median-strip panhandler when you are sitting in a car stopped at a red light. It makes some people feel angry, others threatened.

Moving panhandlers off the median strips did not fix any of the real problems of poverty in Portland, but neither does knocking down the ordinance that banned them. City leaders should keep working to address the real problems of homelessness and extreme poverty.

But that’s not enough to override the First Amendment to the Constitution, according to U.S. District Judge George Z. Singal. In his ruling Wednesday, Singal struck down a Portland ordinance that banned standing in median strips by pedestrians as ‘content-based restriction on free speech.’

Judge Singal saw right through the city’s claim that the goal of the ordinance was to protect public safety, correctly pointing out that the ordinance did not prohibit people from posting campaign signs on the medians, which is at least as dangerous as standing still. . . .

Apple and Google Fighting Patent Trolls In the U.S. Supreme Court.

15 Saturday Feb 2014

Posted by Celia C. Elwell, RP in Appellate Law, Apple, Google, Intellectual Property, Legal Technology, Patent Law, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, United States Supreme Court

≈ Comments Off on Apple and Google Fighting Patent Trolls In the U.S. Supreme Court.

Tags

Allcare Health Management Systems, Apple, BloombergBusinessweek, Charlene Morrow, Cisco Systems, Facebook, Google, Greg Stohr, Intel, Octane Fitness, Patent Freedom, Patent Infringement, Patent Trolls, Silicon Valley, Susan Decker, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, U.S. Supreme Court, Verizon, Yahoo

The Supreme Court Takes on Patent Trolls, by Greg Stohr and Susan Decker, Technology, BloombergBusinessweek

http://tinyurl.com/mav2rc4

Apple (AAPL) and Google (GOOG) say they’re tired of being slapped with baseless patent suits that cost them millions in legal fees. Now they’re asking the U.S. Supreme Court to let them hit back. The two are leading a group of companies urging the court to make it easier for businesses to recover legal costs when they win a patent infringement suit. In two cases to be argued this month, the justices will hear them out.

More than 100,000 businesses were threatened in 2012 by ‘patent assertion entities.’ Often derided as patent trolls, these companies get most of their revenue from licensing patents and from suing other companies for infringement. They filed 19 percent of all patent lawsuits from 2007 to 2011, according to the Government Accountability Office. . . .

Did 9th Circuit Kill Gun Control In Response to 7th Circuit Case?

14 Friday Feb 2014

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

≈ Comments Off on Did 9th Circuit Kill Gun Control In Response to 7th Circuit Case?

Did The 9th Circuit Court Just Kill Gun Control?, by Michael McGough, Los Angeles Times – Opinion

http://tinyurl.com/n3t49v9

Last year, after the U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals struck down Illinois’ blanket ban on the carrying of “ready to use” guns outside the home, a Los Angeles Times editorial said this:

‘Even if it were affirmed by the Supreme Court, the 7th Circuit’s decision probably wouldn’t threaten most state laws that impose sensible restrictions on the carrying of firearms. (In California, applicants for a ‘carry a concealed weapon’ permit must prove that they are of ‘good moral character,’ have sufficient cause to carry a weapon and have received firearms training.)’

We were wrong — sort of.

U.S. Supreme Court’s “Instruction Manual” on Class Action Litigation.

11 Tuesday Feb 2014

Posted by Celia C. Elwell, RP in Appellate Law, Arbitration, Class Actions, Class Certification, Consumer Contracts, Contract Law, Credit Repair, Employment Law, Litigation, United States Supreme Court

≈ Comments Off on U.S. Supreme Court’s “Instruction Manual” on Class Action Litigation.

Tags

American Express Co. v. Italian Colors Restaurant, Arbitration, AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion, Class Action, Class Action Waiver Clauses, Class Certification, Comcast Corp. v. Behrend, Consumer Contracts, Credit Repair Organizations, Daniel P. Shapiro, Federal Arbitration Act, Inc. v. Dukes, Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP, Litigation, Oxford Health Plans LLC v. Sutter, Stolt-Nielsen S.A. v. Animalfeeds International Corp., U.S. Supreme Court, Wal-Mart Stores

Recent Developments For Litigation Risk Mitigation: The U.S. Supreme Court’s Prescription, by Daniel P. Shapiro, Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP

Read Mr. Shapiro’s analysis of recent U.S. Supreme Court cases that have created an instruction manual of sorts for reducing litigation risks for American businesses, as stated below in the excerpt to his post.

There is a hyperlink at the end of the article that will take you to the original article. -CCE

http://tinyurl.com/ldd7s2o

Over the past three years, since mid-2010, the Supreme Court has handed down a series of related decisions that, taken together, constitute an instruction manual for American business on how to reduce litigation risk. As the world has ‘flattened’ and trade has increasingly globalized and become borderless, it has been impossible to ignore that only in the U.S. economy is litigation such a prominent line item for business. This is particularly true with regard to class action litigation. No other country has the sort of class—or collective—action rules that the United States does. Perhaps in response to these facts, the Supreme Court has made it clear that through a combination of arbitration (as opposed to litigation) and class action waiver clauses properly used, businesses can contract out from under a great deal of litigation risk for the future and fundamentally change their litigation environment.

The new Supreme Court decisions offer instruction on how, exactly, to use arbitration clauses and class action waivers to mitigate litigation risk.

JD Supra Changes Its Name and Scope.

02 Sunday Feb 2014

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

≈ Comments Off on JD Supra Changes Its Name and Scope.

Tags

J.D. Supra, J.D. Supra Business Advisor, Robert Ambrogi, Robert Ambrogi's Web Sites, U.S. Supreme Court

New Tagline for JD Supra Underscores Business Focus, by Robert Ambrogi, Robert Ambrogi’s Law Sites

http://tinyurl.com/kvpd6yc

Without any fanfare, JD Supra changed its tagline last month, to ‘JDSupra Business Advisor.’ The move emphasizes the company’s evolution from a simple aggregator of law-related content to a publisher, distributor and curator focused on delivering legal information to the business world.

Can Law Enforcement Search A Cell Phone Without A Warrant?

02 Sunday Feb 2014

Posted by Celia C. Elwell, RP in 1st Circuit Court of Appeals, 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, Android Phones, California Supreme Court, Cell Phones, Constitution, Florida Supreme Court, Fourth Amendment - Search & Seizure, Georgia Supreme Court, iPad, iPhones, Legal Technology, Massachusetts Supreme Court, Ohio Supreme Court, Privacy, Tablets, United States Supreme Court

≈ Comments Off on Can Law Enforcement Search A Cell Phone Without A Warrant?

Tags

California Supreme Court, Cell Phones, Fifth U.S. Court of Appeals, First U.S. Court of Appeals, Florida Supreme Court, Fourth Amendment, Fourth U.S. Court of Appeals, Georgia Supreme Court, Kwame Opam, Law Enforcement, Massachusetts Supreme Court, Ohio Supreme Court, Police, Probable Cause, Search and Seizure, Seventh U.S. Court of Appeals, The Verge, U.S. Supreme Court

Supreme Court Will Decide If Warrantless Cellphone Searches Are Constitutional, by Kwame Opam, The Verge

http://tinyurl.com/p7n2oqy

The United States Supreme Court will rule on two cases on whether a warrantless search of cell phones is legal under the Constitution. The U.S. Supreme Court’s decisions will impact Fourth Amendment search and seizure procedures for law enforcement – must police first obtain a search warrant to access the data on an arrestee’s cell phone? May a cell phone and its digital data be used as evidence?

At this time, both federal circuit courts and state supreme courts disagree as to whether the police can search a cell phone without a warrant. The Fourth, Fifth, and Seventh U.S. Court of Appeals, together with the Supreme Courts of Georgia, California, and Massachusetts say yes, they can. The First Circuit Court of Appeals and the Supreme Courts of Florida and Ohio disagree.

The courts are not the only ones paying close attention to the outcome of these two cases. Several organizations and others are concerned about maintaining privacy of digital devices and data. Law enforcement is in favor a final decision allowing warrantless searches on cell phones if there is probable cause.

The Supreme Court may rule as early as April 2014. -CCE

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

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.’

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.

Why Cases Before the Supreme Court Settle.

23 Saturday Nov 2013

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

≈ Comments Off on Why Cases Before the Supreme Court Settle.

Tags

Bloomberg Law, Legal Precedent, Oral Argument, SCOTUS Blog, Stephen Wermiel, United States Supreme Court

SCOTUS for law students (sponsored by Bloomberg Law): Why cases settle, by Stephen Wermiel, SCOTUS Blog

http://tinyurl.com/o9ohsjb

If you want an unusual measure of the power of the Supreme Court, consider why parties to a case sometimes (although rarely) settle their dispute after the Justices have agreed to hear the appeal and as oral argument approaches.

In some cases, the answer may simply be fear of losing, but it can also be much more profound: not only the fear of losing, but also a concern that in the process the loss may establish a legal precedent for the nation that one side of the case considers harmful.

U.S. Supreme Court Refuses To Hear Appeal in Case That Would Require An Ultrasound Before An Abortion in Oklahoma.

19 Tuesday Nov 2013

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

≈ Comments Off on U.S. Supreme Court Refuses To Hear Appeal in Case That Would Require An Ultrasound Before An Abortion in Oklahoma.

Tags

Abortion, Appellate Law, Oklahoma, U.S. Supreme Court, Ultrasound

Supreme Court justices dismiss another Oklahoma law on abortion, by Bill Mears, CNN Supreme Court Producer, CNN

http://www.cnn.com/2013/11/12/justice/supreme-court-oklahoma-abortion/

“Supervisor” Defined by U.S. Supreme Court

04 Monday Nov 2013

Posted by Celia C. Elwell, RP in Employment Law, Harassment, Race Discrimination, Trial Tips and Techniques, United States Supreme Court

≈ Comments Off on “Supervisor” Defined by U.S. Supreme Court

Tags

Discrimination, Harassment, Supervisor, Title VII, United States Supreme Court

Supreme Court refines Title VII standards, by Kevin B. Leblang and Robert N. Holtzman, Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel LLP

http://bit.ly/1a45PkL

On June 24 2013 the US Supreme Court handed down opinions in two cases refining the standards applicable to claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. First, the court ruled that only employees with the authority to hire, fire or promote the alleged victim will be considered supervisors for purposes of Title VII harassment suits. Second, the Supreme Court applied a strict and employer-friendly causation standard to Title VII retaliation claims.

Oklahoma Supreme Court Rules That 2011 State Abortion Law Violates Constitution

30 Wednesday Oct 2013

Posted by Celia C. Elwell, RP 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

Tags

Abortion, Adam Liptak, Oklahoma Supreme Court, United States Supreme Court

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.