| IN THIS ISSUE | |
| A Conversation With Solicitor General Donald B. Verrilli, Jr. By Wendy McGuire Coats | 1 |
| Honing the Knife: Editing Effectively to Improve Legal Writing By Richard C. Kraus | 1 |
| Editor’s Note By David J. Perlman | 1 |
| Handling the Difficult Oral Argument By Nancy M. Olson | 11 |
|
Effectively Using Standards of Review By Gaetan Gerville-Reache |
14 |
|
Hiring Outside Appellate Counsel: The In-House Perspective By Deena Jo Schneider |
18 |
|
Making Appellate Briefs More Effective: Selecting Issues and Structuring the Argument By Deena Jo Schneider |
26 |
|
Judicial Selection and Disqualification By Nancy M. Olson |
32 |
| The Art of Dissent By Mary-Christine Sungaila | 34 |
| How Judges Decide: A Multidisciplinary Perspective By Nancy M. Olson | 35 |
| Contributors | 37 |
A “disorderly house” is one “ ‘where acts are performed which tend to corrupt morals of the community or promote breaches of peace’ ”; a house is also disorderly if it is “ ‘kept as a place where acts prohibited by statute are habitually indulged or permitted.’ ”
This case requires us to address a question of first impression: What First Amendment protections are afforded a blogger sued for defamation? We hold that liability for a defamatory blog post involving a matter of public concern cannot be imposed without proof of fault and actual damages.
The justices found that the fact that the bid for fees was based on a contract rather than a statute was not enough to distinguish the case from the court's 1988 decision in Budinich v. Becton Dickinson & Co., which held that a decision on the merits is a "final decision" that can be appealed even if the award or amount of attorneys' fees for the litigation remains to be determined.Or, in Justice Kennedy's own words:
Federal courts of appeals have jurisdiction of appeals from "final decisions" of United States district courts. 28 U. S. C. §1291. In Budinich v. Becton Dickinson & Co., 486 U. S. 196 (1988), this Court held that a decision on the merits is a "final decision" under §1291 even if the award or amount of attorney’s fees for the litigation remains to be determined. The issue in this case is whether a different result obtains if the unresolved claim for attorney’s fees is based on a contract rather than, or in addition to, a statute. The answer here, for purposes of §1291 and the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, is that the result is not different. Whether the claim for attorney’s fees is based on a statute, a contract, or both, the pendency of a ruling on an award for fees and costs does not prevent, as a general rule, the merits judgment from becoming final for purposes of appeal.
It is an issue of first impression whether or not a defective special verdict can be "saved" by the harmless error rule. We hold that a defective special verdict form is subject to the harmless error analysis.Also of note in the "Cal. Const., art. VI, section 13 department," see F.P. v. Monier (3d Dist. Jan. 9, 2014), concluding that the trial court's error in failing to issue a statement of decision was not a miscarriage of justice, even though such a failure is often treated as reversible error per se.
The chief justice names trial judges to the appellate courts as temporary justices as needed, usually at the request of an appellate presiding justice. Those assignments come in two-month blocks, and Ferns' have been renewed or switched among the 2nd District's divisions on and off since. He did return briefly to the trial court early on to ensure his spot on the settlement panel, he said.
 |
| A real Dusey |
Learn the ins and outs of appellate practice in the 4/3 from the perspective of two research attorneys: one with ten years of experience in the role [Richard Helms], and another new to the role [Christopher Pinzon]. Topics covered will include brief writing, motions, and oral argument, with an emphasis on how to be most helpful to the court and its attorneys.
| Oral argument w/o tentatives? |
Posts
All Comments
