• Home
  • About Me
  • Disclaimer

The Researching Paralegal

~ Articles and Research for Legal Professionals

The Researching Paralegal

Tag Archives: Lowering the Bar Blog

You Have The Right To Remain Silent, But Can You?

02 Friday Feb 2018

Posted by Celia C. Elwell, RP in Criminal Law, Humor

≈ Comments Off on You Have The Right To Remain Silent, But Can You?

Tags

Kevin Underhill, Lowering the Bar Blog, Miranda Warning

Suspect Who Asks About His “Other Murder Case” Is Charged With That One, Too, by Kevin Underhill, Lowering the Bar Blog

http://bit.ly/2FEdpXI

A good friend has a saying that ranks as some of the best advice I’ve ever heard: “You can think anything you want. You just don’t have to say it.”

I have found that it works well in most work and life situations. In this particular instance, it would have been ideal. -CCE

Share this:

  • Print
  • Tweet
  • Email
  • Share on Tumblr
  • Pocket
  • More
  • Telegram

Like this:

Like Loading...

Unique Contract Complaint – Disney Won’t Help Me Build An X-Wing.

29 Wednesday Jul 2015

Posted by Celia C. Elwell, RP in Breach, Contract Law, Humor

≈ Comments Off on Unique Contract Complaint – Disney Won’t Help Me Build An X-Wing.

Tags

Contract Law, Disney, Kevin Underhill, Lowering the Bar Blog, Motion to Dismiss, X-Wing

Plaintiff: Disney Promised to Help Me Build an X-Wing. Court: No It Didn’t, by Kevin Underhill, Lowering the Bar Blog

http://www.loweringthebar.net/2015/04/flying-car.html

There are no words. This is absolutely unique. -CCE

Many remarkable legal documents land in my inbox, and I try to mention as many as I can. Of that group, only a select few are remarkable enough to make it into the Hall(s) of Fame. I don’t think any other case has yielded both a Hall of Fame pleading and a Hall of Fame court order, but this is probably such a case. . . .

Continue reading →

Share this:

  • Print
  • Tweet
  • Email
  • Share on Tumblr
  • Pocket
  • More
  • Telegram

Like this:

Like Loading...

Tax Day Fun – Frivolous Tax Arguments And Their Penalties.

15 Wednesday Apr 2015

Posted by Celia C. Elwell, RP in Tax Law

≈ Comments Off on Tax Day Fun – Frivolous Tax Arguments And Their Penalties.

Tags

Federal Tax Law, IRS, Kevin Underhill, Lowering the Bar Blog

A Few Tax Arguments Not to Make, by Kevin Underhill, Lowering the Bar Blog

http://tinyurl.com/l85bydj

Hey, your taxes are due this week—or are they?

Yes, they are, that was a figure of speech and not a suggestion that you should treat federal taxes as optional. That is one of the many arguments you should not bother making on Wednesday.

Turns out that the IRS has a publication that lists and summarizes a number of arguments not to make, entitled ‘The Truth About Frivolous Tax Arguments.’ . . .

Continue reading →

Share this:

  • Print
  • Tweet
  • Email
  • Share on Tumblr
  • Pocket
  • More
  • Telegram

Like this:

Like Loading...

Time For Some Levity. Here’s The Case Law Hall of Fame.

31 Saturday Jan 2015

Posted by Celia C. Elwell, RP in Court Orders, Courts, Humor, Judges, Legal Writing

≈ Comments Off on Time For Some Levity. Here’s The Case Law Hall of Fame.

Tags

Case Law Hall of Fame, Legal Humor, Lowering the Bar Blog

Case Law Hall of Fame, Lowering the Bar Blog

http://kevinunderhill.typepad.com/lowering_the_bar/case-law-hall-of-fame.html

Cold wet day here. (Hey, not complaining – we need the rain!) Others digging out from monster snow banks. Time for a giggle or two provided by Lowering The Bar. Each of these is worth a snicker, and some might evoke a full belly laugh. It is hard to find one favorite. Which one is yours? -CCE

Bradshaw v. Unity Marine Corp. (S.D. Tex. 2001) (‘Both attorneys have obviously entered into a secret pact . . . to draft their pleadings entirely in crayon on the back sides of gravy-stained paper place mats, in the hope that the Court would be so charmed by their child-like efforts that their utter dearth of legal authorities in their briefing would go unnoticed.’).

Brown v. Swindell (La. Ct. App. 1967) (holding plaintiff could not recover damages for emotional distress allegedly due to embarrassment of owning a three-legged dog).

Bruni v. Bruni (Ontario Super. Ct. 2010) (‘Here, a husband and wife have been marinating in a mutual hatred so intense as to surely amount to a personality disorder requiring treatment . . . . I am prepared to certify a class action for the return of all wedding gifts.’)

Collins v. Henman (S.D. Ill. 1987) (dismissing case because, even accepting petitioner’s claim that he was the Prophet Muhammed, he was still required to exhaust remedies in state court before filing federal habeas action).

Denny v. Radar Industries (Mich. Ct. App. 1971)(‘Appellant [tried to distinguish his case.] He didn’t. We couldn’t. Affirmed.’)

Fisher v. Lowe (Mich. Ct. App. 1983) (‘We thought that we would never see/A suit to compensate a tree’). Bonus points: Westlaw did the summary and headnotes in verse, too.

Lodi v. Lodi (Cal. Ct. App. 1985) (‘This case started when plaintiff Oreste Lodi sued himself in the Shasta County Superior Court.’).

Miles v. City Council (S.D. Ga. 1982) (relating the story of Blackie the Talking Cat).

Moore v. Moore (Mo. Ct. App. 1960) (recognizing husband’s right to fish without female interference, but ruling that minor infringements on it are not grounds for divorce; also finding that the term ‘hillbilly’ is not an insult, at least when used in Southern Missouri).

Nance v. United States (D.C. Cir. 1962) (‘How do you know it was me, when I had a handkerchief over my face?’)

Noble v. Bradford Marine Inc. (S.D. Fla. 1992) (ruling, not long after ‘Wayne’s World’ was released, that ‘very excellent’ authorities showed that removal to federal court was ‘most bogus and way improvident’; ordering defendants to ‘party on in state court.’).

Norman v. Reagan (D. Or. 1982) (dismissing case against former President Reagan for allegedly causing plaintiff’s ‘civil death’ and also certain unspecified claims regarding a suspicious mailbox).

Pardue v. Turnage (La. Ct. App. 1980) (‘An exhaustive reading of the entire record convinces this court that Kenneth Turnage did give his stuffed bear to the Lessards.  For the trial court to find otherwise was manifest error.’).

People v. Foranyic (Cal. Ct. App. 1998) (ruling that there was probable cause for police to detain someone they see riding a bike at 3 a.m., carrying an axe)

R. v. Duncan (Ontario Ct. Justice 2013) (‘There is an ancient proverb to the effect that ‘those whom the gods would destroy, they first make mad.’‘)

Stambovsky v. Ackley (N.Y. 1991) (holding that a homebuyer could seek recission of sale contract based on his claim that he did not know house was allegedly haunted by poltergeists; based on estoppel, court ruled that ‘as a matter of law, the house is haunted’).

United States ex rel. Mayo v. Satan and His Staff (W.D. Pa. 1971) (dismissing case against Satan and unidentified staff members for lack of jurisdiction and uncertainty as to whether case could properly be maintained as a class action).

Washington v. Alaimo (S.D. Ga. 1996) (ordering plaintiff to show cause why he should not be sanctioned for ‘filing a motion for improper purposes,’ such as those hinted at in the title of the pleading, ‘Motion to Kiss My Ass.’)

In re Marriage of Gustin (Mo. Ct. App. 1993) (holding that wife’s chopping through door of marital residence with a hatchet was not ‘marital misconduct’ sufficient to affect distribution of property).

Share this:

  • Print
  • Tweet
  • Email
  • Share on Tumblr
  • Pocket
  • More
  • Telegram

Like this:

Like Loading...

Arrogant Legal Writing Gives Texas A Horrible, Terrible Very Bad Day.

26 Saturday Jul 2014

Posted by Celia C. Elwell, RP in Appellate Law, Appellate Writing, Bad Legal Writing, Brief Writing, Legal Analysis, Legal Argument, Legal Writing, U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, U.S. District Courts, Voting Rights Act

≈ Comments Off on Arrogant Legal Writing Gives Texas A Horrible, Terrible Very Bad Day.

Tags

Attorney Fees, Bad Legal Writing, Judge Rosemary M. Collyer, Kevin Underhill, Legal Writing, Lowering the Bar Blog, Prevailing Party, Shelby County, State of Texas, Voting District, Voting Rights Act

Bad Attitude Costs Texas in Fee Dispute, by Kevin Underhill, Lowering the Bar Blog

http://www.loweringthebar.net/2014/06/bad-attitude-costs-texas.html

 Hey, I get it—sometimes when you win and you think the other side’s position was bogus, it’s hard not to get all smug and self-righteous.

But you really should try.

Not trying very hard—well, not trying at all—cost the State of Texas a lot of money on June 18, when a judge awarded other parties in a voting-rights case $1,096,770 in legal fees and costs, even though Texas had a decent argument that it was the prevailing party and so it should get paid. (McClatchy DC; thanks, Mark.)

In the U.S., normally each side has to pay its own fees, but some statutes say the ‘prevailing party’ is entitled to recover fees from the loser. But exactly who ‘prevails’ in a lawsuit is not always clear, and that was the case in this lawsuit, which involved Texas’s plans to redraw its voting districts. (Skip down three paragraphs or so if that could not sound more boring.)

Under the Voting Rights Act—Still here? Nerd. Under the Voting Rights Act, Texas was one of the states that had to get federal ‘preclearance’ for redistricting because of the history of discrimination there. Texas decided to sue for a declaration that its plans were okay, and the feds opposed. Other parties (Democrats, basically) intervened because they also wanted to oppose. Texas mostly lost in the district court, and it appealed. In the meantime, though, it came up with new plans that were more likely to comply with the court’s order.

One day before the new plans became law, the U.S. Supreme Court held in Shelby County that all this VRA preclearance stuff was unconstitutional—or had become unconstitutional at some point over the last 50 years, anyway, discrimination now being a thing of the past, you see. Told you so, said Texas, and moved to dismiss the still-pending case involving its first set of plans.

Okay, so who ‘prevailed’ in that mess? The Democratic groups said they did, because Texas lost the first ruling and changed its plans, just like they wanted it to, and they filed motions seeking over $1 million in fees. Texas did not agree.

It did not agree so much, in fact, that it didn’t even bother to file responses. Or, rather, it did file something but it couldn’t bring itself to call the document a ‘response.’ It filed this three-page thing it called an ‘Advisory,’ saying that not only did Shelby County mean Texas won, it meant Texas had essentially always been right because the law was unconstitutional all along (an ‘affront’ and a ‘nullity’), and the case never should have been brought. That’s wrong for a couple of reasons, I think, but Texas was so sure of itself that it didn’t bother to say much of anything else.

As the judge’s decision made clear, this was a Bad Idea. . . .

Share this:

  • Print
  • Tweet
  • Email
  • Share on Tumblr
  • Pocket
  • More
  • Telegram

Like this:

Like Loading...

Lowering the Bar Calls for Deposition Transcripts.

28 Wednesday May 2014

Posted by Celia C. Elwell, RP in Depositions, Discovery, Litigation

≈ Comments Off on Lowering the Bar Calls for Deposition Transcripts.

Tags

deposition testimony, Kevin Underhill, Lowering the Bar Blog, Transcripts

Call for Transcripts, by Kevin Underhill, Lowering the Bar Blog

http://www.loweringthebar.net/2014/05/call-for-transcripts.html

I doubt your clients would approve of sharing a deposition transcript from their case with Kevin, regardless of how hilarious it might be. Don’t worry. Kevin already has quite a collection. -CCE

Last month the New York Times did a fantastic video reenactment of some truly ridiculous deposition testimony. See ‘What Is a Photocopier? (Deposition, Dramatized),’ Lowering the Bar (Apr. 28, 2014) (direct link here). They are looking for more of that kind of thing, which I think is great news, and they asked me for help, which I also think is great. The posts linked below are the ones I recommended as mentioning possible candidates for reenactment, although I unfortunately don’t actually have all of the transcripts. . . .

Share this:

  • Print
  • Tweet
  • Email
  • Share on Tumblr
  • Pocket
  • More
  • Telegram

Like this:

Like Loading...

Trailer Park Duck Is Repeat Offender With Dangerous Propensities.

02 Friday May 2014

Posted by Celia C. Elwell, RP in Animal Law, Damages, Litigation, Personal Injury, Punitive Damages, Torts

≈ Comments Off on Trailer Park Duck Is Repeat Offender With Dangerous Propensities.

Tags

Kevin Underhill, Lowering the Bar Blog, Negligence, Pain and Suffering, Personal Injury

Lawsuit Alleges Duck Attack, by Kevin Underhill, Lowering The Bar Blog

http://www.loweringthebar.net/2014/04/duck-attack.html

KATU in Portland reports that a woman who says she was attacked by a duck at a trailer park has sued the duck’s owner.

Plaintiff alleges in part that said duck was a repeat offender.

According to the complaint (which KATU was kind enough to post), Cynthia Ruddell alleges that she was just stepping out of her motor home ‘on or about May 7, 2012,’ when she was suddenly attacked by a local duck. . . .

Share this:

  • Print
  • Tweet
  • Email
  • Share on Tumblr
  • Pocket
  • More
  • Telegram

Like this:

Like Loading...

Affluenza? Don’t Laugh. It Apparently Worked.

14 Saturday Dec 2013

Posted by Celia C. Elwell, RP in Criminal Law, Drunk Driving

≈ Comments Off on Affluenza? Don’t Laugh. It Apparently Worked.

Tags

Affluenza, Criminal Law, Drunk Driving, Ethan Couch, Judge Jean Boyd, Kevin Underhill, Lowering the Bar Blog

Okay, I Thought People Were Using “Affluenza” as a Joke, by Kevin Underhill, Lowering the Bar Blog

http://tinyurl.com/lbc2hmv

You may have heard recently about Ethan Couch, a 16-year old teenager from a wealthy family who stole beer, got drunk, and had a drunk driving accident. He was driving close to 70 miles-per-hour. He hit and killed four people who standing on the side of the road, and injured nine others.

His parents wanted the Court to send their son to a treatment facility in Newport Beach that had “equine therapy.” They reasoned that the accident was their fault. After all, they had allowed their son to start driving when he was 13. They also given him everything he had ever wanted. Obviously, with this incident, they learned their lesson. (That is sarcasm for those who might not recognize it.)

The defense’s psychologist expert witness who testified at trial in support of this young man recommended that the youth should be treated rather than jailed. The expert opined that this 16-year old suffered from “affluenza.” No, this is not a genuine psychological affliction.

The prosecution’s response was that the juvenile justice system also provides therapy. At least everyone agrees that this young man needs counseling and therapy.

It comes as no surprise that this young man has been in trouble before with the police without consequences from the law or his parents. For this drunk driving incident, this young man could have received a twenty year jail sentence. The Judge, the Hon. Jean Boyd, sentenced him to ten years of probation. -CCE

Share this:

  • Print
  • Tweet
  • Email
  • Share on Tumblr
  • Pocket
  • More
  • Telegram

Like this:

Like Loading...

City Officials Forget A Second Time To Hold An Election.

28 Thursday Nov 2013

Posted by Celia C. Elwell, RP in Election Laws, Municipal Law

≈ Comments Off on City Officials Forget A Second Time To Hold An Election.

Tags

City Council, Election, Lowering the Bar Blog, Mayor, Salt Lake, Utah, Wallsburg

Utah town forgets to hold election — again, by Robert Gehrke, The Salt Lake Tribune (with hat tip to Lowering The Bar Blog!)

http://tinyurl.com/mouuf74

Wallsburg, Utah, is a small town of about 275 people is 40 miles from Salt Lake. It has a mayor and four city council members. It has no staff. If you call City Hall, no one will answer.

Wallsburg forgot to hold an election for the city officials – again. What to do? The state election officials said it was too late to do anything but wait until 2015.

What caused the Town of Wallsburg to forget – again – to hold an election for its city officials? No one reports any suggestion that the city officials deliberately neglected to hold an election. The general opinion is that the eleection was simply overlooked – twice.

It is anticipated that an election will be held in 2015 without fail.  – CCE

Share this:

  • Print
  • Tweet
  • Email
  • Share on Tumblr
  • Pocket
  • More
  • Telegram

Like this:

Like Loading...
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

  • Register
  • Log in
  • Entries feed
  • Comments feed
  • WordPress.com

Categories

Archives

  • 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

Eric Voigt on Top 20 Paralegal Blogs, Websit…
profvoigt on Research Guides in Focus – Mun…
Make Your PDF Docume… on Make Your PDF Document Edit-Pr…
madlaw291282999 on Using Hyperbole -Are You Riski…
How to Treat Bad Cli… on Why Do Bad Clients Deserve The…

Recent Comments

Eric Voigt on Top 20 Paralegal Blogs, Websit…
profvoigt on Research Guides in Focus – Mun…
Make Your PDF Docume… on Make Your PDF Document Edit-Pr…
madlaw291282999 on Using Hyperbole -Are You Riski…
How to Treat Bad Cli… on Why Do Bad Clients Deserve The…
  • RSS - Posts
  • RSS - Comments

Blog at WordPress.com.

  • Follow Following
    • The Researching Paralegal
    • Join 486 other followers
    • Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.
    • The Researching Paralegal
    • Customize
    • Follow Following
    • 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 bloggers like this: