Posted 14 Apr 2014 in Tips and Tactics
At least in the initial drafts, efforts to keep a document concise may stifle the flow of written words.  paperIf this is true, then let the words come freely and deal with wordiness later.  Once the desired content is captured, a writer can turn to making the document shorter and otherwise more pleasing. There are a variety of ways to shorten the draft to meet page limits:
  • Check the margins to be sure the lines extend to the full permitted width and length.  Extend the block quote margins.
  • Create

Posted 14 Apr 2014 in IMLA Briefs
That question arises in Lane v. Franks, No. 13-483, a Supreme Court case in which IMLA and the International Public Management Association have now filed a brief.Supreme Court The Eleventh Circuit ruled that the termination did not trigger First-Amendment scrutiny:
No one disputes that Lane was acting pursuant to his official duties as CITY'S Director when he investigated Schmitz's work activities, spoke with Schmitz and other CACC officials about Schmitz's employment, and ultimately terminated Schmitz's employment. That Lane testified about his official activities pursuant to a subpoena and in the litigation context, in and of itself, does not bring Lane's speech within the protection of the First Amendment.

Posted 14 Apr 2014 in Monday Morning Review
Here are last week's published decisions involving local governments:prison Third Circuit
  • Thomas v. Cumberland County, No. 12-3959 (Apr. 11, 2014) (in suit alleging that the County failed to properly train officers to prevent attack by other inmates, vacating the district court's order of summary judgment for the County because a reasonable jury could find that the County acted with deliberate indifference).
Sixth Circuit Seventh Circuit

Posted 07 Apr 2014 in Monday Morning Review
Here are last week's published decisions involving local governments:SCT stairs Second Circuit Fourth Circuit

Posted 07 Apr 2014 in Commentary
7432008582_3c5d6429f6_nBy Lisa Soronen [We are thrilled to have a guest post from Lisa Soronen, executive director of the State and Local Legal Center.] Last week, the Supreme Court struck down aggregate limits on individual contributions to candidates for federal office, political parties, and political action committees. McCutcheon v. FEC will likely impact the dozen or so states that place aggregate limits on individual campaign contributions to candidates for state office. A cursory glance at state campaign finance laws regulating local elections indicates that states generally have not adopted aggregate caps meaning this decision will not affect contributions to local elections. Federal law allows

Posted 01 Apr 2014 in Case Notes
A County retirement-benefit plan requires an employee to contribute a percentage of his salary to the plan.Retirement But not all employees contribute at the same rate. Instead, an older employee must contribute at a higher rate than a younger employee who enrolls at the same time. Does this violate the Age Discrimination in Employment Act? The Fourth Circuit, in EEOC v. Baltimore County, No. 13-1106 (Mar. 31, 2014), said that in the case of Baltimore County's plan, it does. In the court's view,

Posted 31 Mar 2014 in Monday Morning Review
Here are last week's published decisions involving local governments:FedPrac First Circuit Fifth Circuit

Posted 28 Mar 2014 in Case Notes
The Second Amendment confers an individual right to keep and bear arms.Handgun We know that now—after decades of uncertainty—because the Supreme Court said so in District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008). But how far does the Second Amendment extend? Does it prevent a City from regulating the storage of handguns in homes or the sale of ammunition that expands upon impact, referrred to as hollow-point bullets? In a case decided this week, Jackson v. City and County of San Francisco, No. 12-17803 (Mar. 25, 2014), the Ninth Circuit ruled that those bringing a Second-Amendment challenge to the City and County of San Francisco's handgun and ammunition regulations were not likely to succeed on the merits. What exactly was at issue and how did the court reach its conclusions?