Posted 10 Oct 2013 in Tips and Tactics
In the “olden days,” as recently as the 1970s, briefs had to be written by hand or dictated, then typed on a typewriter.  An omission or error often meant having to retype the entire page.  The computer can be used simply as a fancy typewriter, but writing on the computer is fundamentally different in kind as well as in quality. The following comments assume the writer starts with the appellate record or an opening or opposition brief on appeal and is required to produce an opening, opposition or reply brief:

Posted 08 Oct 2013 in Monday Morning Review

Here's how local governments fared in the federal courts of appeals during the past week. First Circuit National Association of Tobacco Outlets v. City of Providence, No. 13-1053 (Sept. 30, 2013) (finding that City's tobacco-sales ordinance, designed to reduce youth tobacco use, does not violate First Amendment and is not preempted) Fifth Circuit Marceaux v. Lafayette City-Parish Consolidated Government, No. 13-30332 (Sept. 30, 2013) (finding that district court improperly granted protective order requiring officers suing police department to remove website) Eleventh Circuit Dawkins v. Fulton County Government, No. 12-11951 (Sept. 30,...

Posted 30 Sep 2013 in Tips and Tactics
As a generally applicable rule, new issues cannot be raised on appeal.  The record is silent and the issue is commonly new to the prejudice of one party.  Appellate courts have little or no difficulty in rejecting the introduction of new issues on appeal in most instances. General rules generally have exceptions, as is true here.  Although there are a number of new issues listed that may be raised on appeal, the reality is that new issues are successfully raised on appeal very rarely.[1] The new issue may be introduced by one of the litigants or, less often, by the appellate court sua sponte.[2] Most often, the successful new issues concern either the court’s own power and protection or the protection of absent or incompetent persons. In civil cases, litigants select their attorneys and normally are bound by the errors and omissions those attorneys make. Absent compelling circumstances, trial and appellate courts normally should not come to the aid of litigants.[3] Recognized exceptions that courts may apply in many jurisdictions include the following, although variation among the States and in differing circumstances prevents certainty.

Posted 30 Sep 2013 in Monday Morning Review

Here's how local governments fared in the federal courts of appeals during the past week. Fifth Circuit United States v. City of New Orleans, No. 13-30161 (Sept. 27, 2013) (upholding denial of City's motion to vacate consent decree regarding police practices). Sixth Circuit Bessie Jones v. City of Cincinnati, No. 11-4174 (Sept. 27, 2013) (reversing district court's denial of qualified immunity to police officers regarding excessive-force and failure-to-provide-medical-care claims). Tenth Circuit Olson v. City of Golden, No. 11-1454 (Sept. 25, 2013) (dismissing as moot a challenge to City's campaign-finance regulations...

Posted 27 Sep 2013 in Roundup
SupremeCourt2(1) Next Term Over at Cities Speak, Lisa Soronen of the State and Local Legal Center outlines upcoming Supreme Court cases that could affect local governments: And Wednesday, Irene Zurko discussed the case of Sprint Communications v. Jacobs. For a full preview, register to hear from Tom Hungar, Kannon Shanmugam, and David Savage on October 22nd here. (2) More on Town of Greece SCOTUSblog has some interesting commentary on Town of Greece, a case that we previously addressed here. Eric Rassbach says that those challenging the Town's prayer practice have reached a "'Hail Mary'" moment" where "facing imminent disaster" they "stake[e] everything on one desperate, final gambit:"

Posted 26 Sep 2013 in Tips and Tactics

For any local-government attorney interested in attending a worthwhile conference focused on appellate practice, I highly recommend the Appellate Judges Education Institute 2013 Summit to be held November 14-17 in San Diego. Here's a summary of highlights of this year's meeting: Highlights will include conversations with Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, the United States Solicitor General Donald B. Verrilli, Jr. and the Chief Justice of the California Supreme Court, Tani G. Cantil-Sakauye.  The programs put together by the Council are designed to meet...

Posted 25 Sep 2013 in IMLA Briefs
When is it appropriate for a federal court to decide a case that is pending in state court?Supreme Court On the Supreme Court’s docket is a case that addresses this very issue, giving the Court the chance to once again ponder the limits of the Younger abstention doctrine. That case, on appeal from the Eighth Circuit, is Sprint Communs. Co., L.P. v. Jacobs, Case No. 12-815. At issue is whether Younger abstention applies only when the underlying state proceeding is “coercive” or whether it is sometimes appropriate for federal courts to abstain from hearing cases that are “remedial” in nature.  Many cases dealing with Younger abstention have turned on that distinction. But the difference between “coercive” and “remedial” proceedings, and the way courts classify cases as one or the other, is anything but clear-cut.  Indeed, the distinction could turn on whether the government or a private party initiated the action, as “coercive” proceedings are typically described as those that are criminal or quasi-criminal in nature.

Posted 23 Sep 2013 in Case Notes

The Ninth Circuit issued its decision Friday in Pacific Shores Properties, LLC v. City of Newport Beach, No. 11-55460. In the case, plaintiffs alleged that a City ordinance violated the Fair Housing Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act, the California Fair Employment and Housing Act, and the Equal Protection Clause because the ordinance had the practical effect of prohibiting new group homes for recovering alcoholics and drug users from opening in most residential districts. Although the district court had granted summary judgment for the City, the Ninth...

Posted 23 Sep 2013 in Monday Morning Review

Here's how local governments fared in the federal courts of appeals during the past week. Second Circuit Velez v. City of New York, No. 12-1965-cv (Sept. 18, 2013) (in a case where a police informant was killed and his representative brought suit against City, finding that district court properly required jury to find a "special relationship" between informant and police, and that no new trial was required). Carver v. Nassau County Interim Finance Authority, No. 13-0801 (Sept. 20, 2013) (in suit challenging wage freeze for County...

Posted 18 Sep 2013 in Tips and Tactics
NYcourtA nonparty may be vitally interested in the outcome of pending litigation or a pending appeal.  The interest may be so great and so direct as to require that the nonparty be made a party.  Such a nonparty is frequently but unfortunately spoken of as indispensable.[1]  When the interest is somewhat less, however, the nonparty may seek leave to intervene or to appear as an amicus or, alternatively, watch the litigation from the sidelines.[2]  What considerations bear on the choice of intervention and appearance as an amicus? Most significantly, an intervenor is bound as a party, whereas an amicus curiae is not a party and is not bound by the judgment.[3]  That distinction is a strong encouragement for a nonparty to proceed as an amicus curiae and retain the ability to fight again in the future, especially if the nonparty’s ability to participate in and influence the trial, appeal, and outcome as an intervenor are not entirely clear. As a party, an intervenor will have the right to appeal, denied to an amicus, but may be held liable for attorney fees and costs.[4]  An intervenor will be bound by the judgment for purposes of res judicata and collateral estoppel, while an amicus will not.