• Home
  • About Me
  • Disclaimer

The Researching Paralegal

~ Articles and Research for Legal Professionals

The Researching Paralegal

Tag Archives: U.S. Supreme Court

Historical Supreme Court Cases Now Free Online.

27 Tuesday Mar 2018

Posted by Celia C. Elwell, RP in Appellate Law, Case Law, Federal Law, Library of Congress, Research, United States Supreme Court

≈ Comments Off on Historical Supreme Court Cases Now Free Online.

Tags

Hein & Co., Joe Hodnicki, Law Librarian Blog, U.S. Supreme Court

Historical Supreme Court cases now online thanks to Library of Congress (and Hein & Co.), by Joe Hodnicki, Law Librarian Blog

https://bit.ly/2GeSxLG

According to the press release, ‘More than 225 years of Supreme Court decisions acquired by the Library of Congress are now publicly available online – free to access in a page image format for the first time. The Library has made available more than 35,000 cases that were published in the printed bound editions of United States Reports. … The digital versions of the U.S. Reports in the new collection were acquired by the Law Library of Congress through a purchase agreement with William S. Hein & Co. Inc. The acquisition is part of the Law Library’s transition to a digital future and in support of its efforts to make historical U.S. public domain legal materials freely and easily available to Congress and the world.’ You can access the collection here.”

Share this:

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

Like this:

Like Loading...

SCOTUS Notes Has the Supreme Court Justices’ Handwritten Notes!

18 Sunday Feb 2018

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

≈ Comments Off on SCOTUS Notes Has the Supreme Court Justices’ Handwritten Notes!

Tags

Joe Hodnicki, Law Librarian Blog, Legal Analysis, SCOTUS Notes, U.S. Supreme Court

SCOTUS Notes transcribes notes written by Supreme Court justices during conference meetings, posted by Joe Hodnicki, Law Librarian Blog (with hat tip to BeSpacific Blog)

http://bit.ly/2EA7cvK

We can read the U.S. Supreme Court justices’ handwritten notes during their deliberations? What will this mean for legal analysis and where do I sign up? -CCE

SCOTUS Notes is the newest crowdsourcing project under the Zooniverse platform originated at the University of Minnesota. ‘In this project, members of the public transcribe handwritten notes from U.S. Supreme Court justices. Unlike members of Congress, justices cast their votes in complete privacy during weekly conference meetings. Only justices are allowed in the Chief Justice’s conference room when they discuss, deliberate, and make initial decisions on cases that focus on some of the nation’s most pressing legal issues. The only record of what has been said, and by whom, is provided by the handwritten personal notes the justices themselves take during conference. These crucial documents detail the discussions and debates that took place in thousands of cases spanning multiple decades.’

[Emphasis added.]

Share this:

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

Like this:

Like Loading...

Texas’ Voter ID Law – Challenged Again.

27 Sunday Mar 2016

Posted by Celia C. Elwell, RP in Civil Rights, Constitutional Law, Racial Discrimination

≈ Comments Off on Texas’ Voter ID Law – Challenged Again.

Tags

Lyle Denniston, SCOTUSblog, Texas, U.S. Supreme Court, Voter ID

New Challenge To Texas Voter ID Law, by Lyle Denniston, SCOTUSblog

http://bit.ly/1WSr93M

The long-running controversy over a Texas voter ID requirement — a dispute that once kept Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg up all night writing a dissent — returned to the Supreme Court on Friday as challengers sought again to stop the law’s enforcement.  The application (Veasey v. Abbott, 15A999) can be found here; it argued that the law is the strictest in the nation in its demands for identification before a voter may cast a ballot. . . .

Continue reading →

Share this:

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

Like this:

Like Loading...

Plain English and the U.S. Supreme Court.

03 Thursday Mar 2016

Posted by Celia C. Elwell, RP in Appellate Law, Legal Writing, Plain Language, Readability, United States Supreme Court

≈ Comments Off on Plain English and the U.S. Supreme Court.

Tags

Plain English, SCOTUS Blog, U.S. Supreme Court

Plain English/Language Made Simple, SCOTUSblog

http://www.scotusblog.com/category/plain-english/

This is our archive of posts in Plain English. You may also be interested in these resources:

Supreme Court Procedure
Glossary of Legal Terms
Biographies of the Justices

Continue reading →

Share this:

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

Like this:

Like Loading...

So What’s Going To Happen to Puerto Rico?

14 Thursday Jan 2016

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

≈ Comments Off on So What’s Going To Happen to Puerto Rico?

Tags

Lyle Denniston, Puetp Rico, SCOTUS Blog, Sovereignty, U.S. Supreme Court

Argument Analysis: Puerto Rico — Special No More?, by Lyle Denniston, SCOTUS Blog

http://bit.ly/1n4vFAC

It doesn’t happen often, but there are times when the very last words spoken by a lawyer during a Supreme Court argument sum up very clearly what the whole hour has been about.  That happened on Wednesday, when a lawyer’s closing, plaintive comment was: ‘Please do not take the constitution of Puerto Rico away from the people of Puerto Rico.’

*     *     *

That prospect was entirely opposite of what the current government leaders of Puerto Rico had sought in taking their case to the Supreme Court.  They wanted a declaration that, at least up to a point, Puerto Rico was entitled to the dignity of ‘sovereignty.’

Part of the problem in achieving ‘sovereignty,’ it appeared, is that the Court was not exactly sure what that word means. . . .  ‘

Continue reading →

Share this:

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

Like this:

Like Loading...

C-Span’s 12-Part Series on Landmark Supreme Court Cases.

15 Thursday Oct 2015

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

≈ Comments Off on C-Span’s 12-Part Series on Landmark Supreme Court Cases.

Tags

C-Span, Landmark Cases, U.S. Supreme Court

C-Span Launches New Series On Landmark Supreme Court Cases, by James B. Levy, Legal Skills Prof  Blog

http://tinyurl.com/pln73xq

I apologize for not finding this sooner. Sounds fantastic! -CCE

C-Span has launched a new, 12 part series that airs on Monday evenings at 9:00 p.m. (the series began on October 5 but I only found about it now) that profiles landmark Supreme Court decisions through 1973.

*     *     *

Using C-SPAN’s signature live format of studio guests interacting with viewers and interspersed with visits to historic sites for context, the series will explore the stories of historic rulings which changed American society, the plaintiffs who sparked these cases and the justices and lawyers who were key to the Supreme Court’s review. A video-rich website will offer the series on demand along with classroom materials. Here is a two-minute video trailer previewing the series https://youtu.be/6kuc5tyborM. . . .

Continue reading →

Share this:

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

Like this:

Like Loading...

Supreme Court Writing Analysis – Whose Briefs Win and Why.

22 Saturday Aug 2015

Posted by Celia C. Elwell, RP in Appellate Law, Appellate Writing, Brief Writing, Editing, Grammar, Legal Analysis, Legal Argument, Legal Writing, Persuasive Writing, Readability, United States Supreme Court

≈ Comments Off on Supreme Court Writing Analysis – Whose Briefs Win and Why.

Tags

Appellate Briefs, Legal Analysis, Legal Writing, Persuasive Legal Writing, Plain English, U.S. Supreme Court

Who Wins in the Supreme Court? An Examination of Attorney and Law Firm Influence, by Alan Feldman, University of Southern California, Political Science, SSRN.com (Date posted: August 18, 2015 ; Last revised: August 21, 2015)

http://tinyurl.com/q48ywgq

This paper is a detailed analysis of what type of legal writing and briefs from 1946 through 2013 have been the most influential  with the United States Supreme Court and the lawyers who write them. Interestingly, lawyers who write short sentences in the active voice and who use fewer words than the majority of brief writers are the most successful. It is a fascinating read, and strongly recommended. -CCE

Share this:

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

Like this:

Like Loading...

Patent Law’s Most Influential Supreme Court Decisions From 2005 through 2015.

12 Thursday Mar 2015

Posted by Celia C. Elwell, RP in Appellate Law, Case of First Impression, Intellectual Property, Patent Law, United States Supreme Court

≈ Comments Off on Patent Law’s Most Influential Supreme Court Decisions From 2005 through 2015.

Tags

Cases of First Impression, Dennis Crouch, PatentlyO Blog, Precedent, U.S. Supreme Court

Most Cited Supreme Court Patent Decisions (2005-2015), by Dennis Crouch, PATENTLYO Blog

http://tinyurl.com/mpd5ue

The list below considers all of the U.S. Supreme Court patent cases decided during the past decade (Since January 2005) and ranks them according to the number of citations.  Citation offers some insight into the influence of decisions, but is obviously limited for a number of reasons. Cases may be cited because of their importance in changing the doctrine (KSR, eBay) or simply as the court’s most recent statement of the law on an important issue (Microsoft v. i4i and KSR) or for a narrow procedural issue that applies in many cases (Unitherm). Bay’s high citation rate is also boosted because its principles have been applied broadly to injunctive relief across many areas of law. Some cases with low citation counts may also have major impacts. They may, for instance impact a small number of very important cases (Caraco) or perhaps they cause folks to change behavior so that the issue stops arising.

With this list we also have the timeline problem where older cases are more likely to be highly cited since there has been more opportunity for those cites. I Alice Corp to rise in the ranks Nautilus and Teva, on the other hand, may well flounder (based upon the Federal Circuit’s treatment of those cases thus far). . . .

Continue reading →

Share this:

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

Like this:

Like Loading...

What States And U.S. Supreme Court May Rule On Abortion In 2015.

01 Thursday Jan 2015

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

≈ Comments Off on What States And U.S. Supreme Court May Rule On Abortion In 2015.

Tags

Abortion, Jennifer Luden, NPR, State Laws on Abortion, U.S. Supreme Court

Big Question For 2015: Will The Supreme Court Rule On Abortion?, by Jennifer Luden, NPR

http://tinyurl.com/ktmqead

The new year is expected to bring yet another round of state laws to restrict abortion — and 2015 could also be the year a challenge to at least one of these laws could reach the Supreme Court.

The ongoing spike in abortion laws started after 2010, when Republicans won big in the midterms. Since then, state lawmakers have passed more than 200 abortion regulations — more than in the entire decade before. And with more statehouse gains in the fall elections, abortion opponents expect another good year.

The Two-Way

Supreme Court Blocks Abortion Rules That Closed Most Texas Clinics

‘The two states that stand out is where we are now able to stop bad legislation from happening,’ says Mary Spaulding Balch, state legislative director of the National Right to Life Committee. ‘It looks like we have a pro-life majority in the Senate in the state of New York, which could prevent a bill that Gov. Cuomo was pushing that would have expanded abortion in New York, if you can imagine.’

The same political calculus goes for Washington state, Balch says.

Then there’s Tennessee, where a new constitutional amendment denies any right to abortion. That’s expected to clear the way for a string of regulations courts previously had struck down. . . .

 

 

 

Share this:

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

Like this:

Like Loading...

The U.S. Supreme Court’s Recent Cell Phone Ruling.

28 Saturday Jun 2014

Posted by Celia C. Elwell, RP in Android Phones, Appellate Law, Blackberry Phones, Cell Phones, Fourth Amendment - Search & Seizure, iPhones, Legal Technology, Search Warrants, United States Supreme Court

≈ Comments Off on The U.S. Supreme Court’s Recent Cell Phone Ruling.

Tags

Cell Phones, Fred Barash, Judge Learned Hand, Search Warrants, U.S. Supreme Court, Warrantless Search, Washington Post

The Scary Part Of The Supreme Court’s Cellphone Ruling, by Fred Barash, The Washington Post

http://tinyurl.com/oa2t6te

That Supreme Court ruling on cellphones was supposed to be reassuring. The government needs a warrant to search your phone, the court ruled.

But read Riley vs. California more closely and it’s just a little scary — particularly for those who pay little attention to what’s on their smartphones. If you don’t think your phone exposes your life-all of it-take it from the nation’s highest court.

Your phone, says the court, is your life. Cracking it open is even more revealing than rummaging through your home, which the Fourth Amendment’s protection against unreasonable searches was designed to protect. . . .

Share this:

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

Like this:

Like Loading...

Can You Buy A Gun For Someone Else?

16 Monday Jun 2014

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

≈ Comments Off on Can You Buy A Gun For Someone Else?

Tags

BloombergBusinessweek, Gun-Trafficking, Justice Kagan, Justice Scalia, Law Enforcement, Paul M. Barrett, Second Amendment, Straw Purchaser, U.S. Supreme Court

Supreme Court Is One Vote Away From Wrecking Gun-Trafficking Prosecutions, by Paul M. Barrett, Politics & Policy, BloombergBusinessweek

http://tinyurl.com/msbaoh2

Sometimes what the Supreme Court almost does is more striking than what it says in its majority opinion. Such is the case with today’s 5-4 ruling that federal agents may go after a ‘straw’ purchaser who buys a gun for someone else, even if both people are legally eligible to own firearms.

What’s amazing about this decision is that four dissenting members of the court—led by Justice Antonin Scalia—were prepared to rule against the federal government in a fashion that would have undermined countless prosecutions of alleged gun traffickers. To put this more starkly: The Supreme Court is one vote away from judicially nullifying one of the most common tools U.S. law enforcers use to deter and punish criminals who send other people into gun stores to purchase firearms and circumvent the federal background-check system. . . .

Share this:

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

Like this:

Like Loading...

Supreme Court Judges Really Use Dictionaries To Determine Legislative Intent?

26 Monday May 2014

Posted by Celia C. Elwell, RP in Appellate Judges, Appellate Law, Judges, Legal Analysis, Legal Dictionaries, Legal Writing, Legislative History, References, United States Supreme Court

≈ Comments Off on Supreme Court Judges Really Use Dictionaries To Determine Legislative Intent?

Tags

Adam Liptak, Good Legal Writing, Legal Dictionaries, Legal Writing, Legislative History, New York Times, Statutes, Tiffany Johnson, U.S. Supreme Court

Look It Up! Or Not…, by Tiffany Johnson, Good Legal Writing

http://goodlegalwriting.com/2014/04/14/look-it-up-or-not/

I always encourage my students to look up any words that confuse them as they read opinions.  But this 2011 New York Times article  cites a few scholars who don’t think it’s the most judicious practice to undertake from the bench.  Check out this excerpt:

In May alone, the justices cited dictionaries in eight cases to determine what legislators had meant when they used words like ‘prevent,’ ‘delay’ and ‘report.’ Over the years, justices have looked up both perfectly ordinary words (‘now,’ ‘also,’ ‘any,’ ‘if’) and ones you might think they would know better than the next guy (‘attorney,’ ‘common law’).

All of this is, lexicographers say, sort of strange. . . .

Share this:

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

Like this:

Like Loading...

The Public Library of Law.

25 Sunday May 2014

Posted by Celia C. Elwell, RP in Case Law, Constitutions, Court Rules, FastCase, Internet, Law Libraries, Mandatory Law, Primary Law, References, Regulations, Research, State Law, Statutes

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

Case Law, Civil Appeal State Profiles, Fastcase®, Legal Research, Regulations, Statutes, The Public Library of Law, U.S. Code, U.S. Courts of Circuit Appeals, U.S. Supreme Court

The Public Library of Law

http://www.plol.org/Pages/Search.aspx

The Public Library of Law is free. Actually, it’s one of the largest free law libraries on the Internet. It gives you access to case law from the U.S. Supreme Court, all U.S. Circuit Courts, case law for all states (from 1997 to date), the United States Federal Code (federal statutes), states for all 50 states, regulations, court rules, state and federal constitution, and more.

One of the more interesting things about PLoL is that it provides free links to paid content on Fastcase®. If you are not familiar with Fastcase®, check it out at http://www.fastcase.com. If you need help learning how to use it, you will find free tutorials at http://www.fastcase.com/support/. -CCE

Share this:

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

Like this:

Like Loading...

Revisiting Civil Rights Case Mendez v. Westminster.

17 Saturday May 2014

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

≈ Comments Off on Revisiting Civil Rights Case Mendez v. Westminster.

Tags

Brown v. Board of Education, Civil Rights Act of 1964, Francisco Macías, In Custodia Lexis, Law Librarians of Congress, Segregation, Separate But Equal, U.S. Supreme Court

Before Brown v. Board of Education There Was Méndez v. Westminster, by Francisco Macías, In Custodia Lexis, Law Librarians of Congress

http://tinyurl.com/lplvmwa

As I wrote about earlier in the blog, the case Hernández v. Texas was decided just two weeks prior to Brown; but there is another little-known case that was instrumental for the American civil rights movement: Méndez v. Westminster. While many scholars of educational desegregation assure us that the beginning of the end of the ‘separate but equal’ doctrine was set underway with Brown v. Board of Education. It could be argued that the beginning of that end may actually date back seven years prior, Méndez v. Westminster, which ended the almost 100 years of segregation that had remained a practice since the end of the U.S.-Mexico War of 1848 and the signing of the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo. The end of the U.S.-Mexico War gave rise to ‘anti-immigrant sentiments [that] resulted in increased measures to segregate Mexican-Americans from so-called ‘white’ public institutions such as swimming pools, parks, schools, and eating establishments.’. . .

Share this:

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

Like this:

Like Loading...

U.S. Supreme Court Amends Four Hearsay Evidence Rules.

05 Monday May 2014

Posted by Celia C. Elwell, RP in Court Rules, Evidence, Rule 801, Rule 803 Exception

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

Colin Miller, Evidence, EvidenceProf Blog, Hearsay Evidence, U.S. Supreme Court

Four Amendments: Supreme Court Amends Four Federal Rules of Evidence, by Evidence ProfBlogger, Editor: Colin Miller, EvidenceProf Blog

http://bit.ly/1ifPnD6

The Supreme Court has approved four amendments to the Federal Rules of Evidence that will take effect on December 1, 2014 unless Congress takes another action. The Rules altered? Federal Rule of Evidence 801(d)(1)(B) and Federal Rules of Evidence 803(6), (7), and (8).

Share this:

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

Like this:

Like Loading...

More on Link Rot.

27 Sunday Apr 2014

Posted by Celia C. Elwell, RP in Appellate Law, Legal Technology, Link Rot, United States Supreme Court

≈ Comments Off on More on Link Rot.

Tags

All Tech Considered, Citations, Legal Writing, Link Rot, NPR, Perma CC, U.S. Supreme Court, URL

Stopping Link Rot: Aiming to End A Virtual Epidemic, by NPR Staff, All Tech Considered, NPR

http://n.pr/QTrCGp

I have mentioned perma.cc and the problem of link rot before. It is a good solution but not quite perfected. When I have used it here on this blog, it is not always reliable, which is disappointing for something that shows such promise. Hopefully all the kinks will be worked out soon. -CCE

Just about anyone who’s gone online has encountered the message: ‘Error 404’ or page ‘Not Found.’ It’s what you see when a link is broken or dead — when the resource is no longer available.

It happens all across the Internet, on blogs, news websites, even links cited in decisions by the Supreme Court. It’s called link rot, and it spreads over time as more pages die.

These are natural deaths; links die when the server where the page first lived has closed for business, or a filter is blocking access. It’s annoying on sites like Buzzfeed and Gawker, but it’s worse when links go rotten on judicial decisions or works of scholarship.

Jonathan Zittrain, professor of law and computer science at Harvard University, says that’s a serious problem.

‘It’s extraordinarily bad for the long-term maintenance of the information we need, say, to understand the law,’ says Zittrain, who helped create Perma.cc, a service to help judges, authors and scholars preserve links indefinitely. . . .

Share this:

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

Like this:

Like Loading...

Today’s U.S. Supreme Court Opinion on Affirmative Action.

22 Tuesday Apr 2014

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

≈ Comments Off on Today’s U.S. Supreme Court Opinion on Affirmative Action.

Tags

Affirmative Action, Higher Education, Michigan, Michigan Constitution, Minorities, Public Universities, SCOTUS Blog, U.S. Supreme Court

Evening Round-Up: Schuette v. Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action, by Kali Borkoski, SCOTUSblog

http://tinyurl.com/m8nung8

I have not yet read the entire opinion, as well as all of the separate opinions. This post provides links to many others that have already analyzed this decision and who wrote what. -CCE

This morning, a divided Court upheld an amendment to the Michigan constitution that prohibits the use of affirmative action by public universities in admissions.  Justice Kennedy announced the judgment of the Court in an opinion that was joined by the Chief Justice and Justice Alito.  Justice Scalia filed an opinion, concurring in the judgment only, that was joined by Justice Thomas, while Justice Breyer filed his own opinion concurring in the judgment. Justice Sotomayor filed a dissenting opinion (joined by Justice Ginsburg) and summarized her dissent from the bench. . . .

Share this:

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

Like this:

Like Loading...

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

Share this:

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

Like this:

Like Loading...

Duty to Arbitrate Survives End of Employment Contracts.

05 Saturday Apr 2014

Posted by Celia C. Elwell, RP in 6th Circuit Court of Appeals, 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. . . .

Share this:

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

Like this:

Like Loading...

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. . . .

Share this:

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

Like this:

Like Loading...

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. . . .

Share this:

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

Like this:

Like Loading...

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

11 Tuesday Feb 2014

Posted by Celia C. Elwell, RP in 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, 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  

(This piece is adapted from Daniel P. Shapiro’s article published in the November 2013, issue of AHLA Connections. © 2013 American Health Lawyers Association.)

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.

Share this:

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

Like this:

Like Loading...

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.

Share this:

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

Like this:

Like Loading...

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, 4th 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

Share this:

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

Like this:

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

Like this:

Like Loading...
← Older 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

  • 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 455 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: