Commentary Archives - Page 20 of 21 - IMLA
icon
Leave a message
 

Commentary

Home > Commentary (Page 20)

Posted 26 Aug 2014 in Case Notes, Commentary
Even though the Supreme Court’s next term won’t officially begin until October 6, the Court has already accepted about 40 of the 70 or so cases it will decide in the upcoming months. For a more detailed summary of all the cases the Court has accepted so far affecting local government, read the State and Local Legal Center’s Supreme Court Preview for Local Governments.Supreme Court3 Here is a quick highlight of what is on the Court’s docket right now that will affect local government:

Posted 21 Jul 2014 in Commentary, Tips and Tactics
Trial and appellate counsel may differ for a variety of reasons, not all of which reflect poorly on one or the other.Gavel  On occasion, however, trial counsel may have acted so unprofessionally or ignorantly as to be the target of strong remarks by the appellate court.  In this case, the appellate court should and often does inform readers of its decision that the same attorney did not appear in both courts.

Posted 21 Jul 2014 in Commentary
Supreme Court cases are usually known for what they hold.5554035521_f6b59ccafa_n  Harris v. Quinn will forever be known for what it did not hold.  The Court did not overrule Abood v. Detroit Board of Education, a 35-year old precedent that is a cornerstone of public sector collective bargaining.  But it certainly foreshadowed its demise. In Harris v. Quinn the Supreme Court held 5-4 that the First Amendment prohibits the collection of an agency fee from home health care providers who do not wish to join or support a union. 

Posted 08 Jul 2014 in Commentary
Litigation offers attorneys many opportunities to choose how they will behave and what they will say. youre it The best course is to take the high road at every opportunity.  Rudeness, profanity, throwing things, hitting people, we all know how the ugliness starts and how far it can progress.  A small meanness may be reciprocated, then followed by an escalation and tit for tat.  Once it starts, unprofessional behavior may be very difficult to stop or to confine to one specific case. All attorneys are held to a high standard by the law and the rules of professionalism and civility.

Posted 26 Jun 2014 in Commentary
Judicial opinions enjoy no copyright, so some may contend that copying from judicial opinions without attribution may not be plagiarism. paperThey would be wrong. Copying another’s writing is plagiarism even if there is no copyright and even if some sentences are added or deleted. Moreover, even copying multiple citations from another’s work is plagiarism.  In re Burghoff, 374 B.R. 681, 685 (Bankr. N.D. Iowa 2007), following Frith v. State, 263 Ind. 100, 325 N.E.2d 186, 188 (1975). Plagiarism in brief writing is disfavored at best, and there are multiple examples of judicial displeasure.

Posted 20 Jun 2014 in Case Notes, Commentary
The Supreme Court held unanimously that the First Amendment protects a public employee who provides truthful sworn testimony, compelled by a subpoena, outside the course of his or her ordinary responsibilities.5554035521_f6b59ccafa_n The good:  The Court was clear that if employees admit to wrongdoing while testifying they can still be disciplined and that false or erroneous testimony or testimony that unnecessarily discloses sensitive, confidential, or privileged information may balance the Pickering scale in the employer’s favor. The bad:  The Court read “official job duties” narrowly to exclude speech about information merely learned at the job. The ugly:  The Court doesn’t decide the obvious next question:  is an employee’s truthful sworn testimony, which is part of an employee’s ordinary responsibilities, protected by the First Amendment?

Posted 30 May 2014 in Commentary, Tips and Tactics
String cites are almost universally condemned.  paperJudges at all levels criticize string cites.  Minority and dissenting judges criticize majorities that use string cites, and vice versa but to a lesser extent.  Attorneys criticize the string cites in their opponents’ briefs.  Law reviews insult string cites routinely. What distinguishes a string cite from a list of cases that support the stated proposition?

Posted 08 May 2014 in Commentary
When is a judgment a judgment for purposes of res judicata or the doctrine of full faith and credit when the judgment is obtained in one court and sought to be enforced in a different court?  Dictionary Many possible answers come to mind: when the judgment is entered, when the time for appeal has elapsed, during the pendency of an appeal for which no supersedeas bond was provided, when any appeal of the judgment is finished, when the judgment is final in the court that entered it, when the judgment is final in the court in which enforcement is sought. There may be a State and a circumstance in which every one of these possible answers is the right answer.

Posted 06 May 2014 in Commentary
Justice Kennedy is better known for his rhetorical flair than his practical guidance.church-state  But his majority opinion in Town of Greece v. Galloway provides a roadmap local governments can follow to stay out of trouble when beginning city council meetings with a prayer. Town of Greece resolves two issues:  whether prayers must be nonsectarian and whether prayers before city council meetings are coercive. The Court concludes that sectarian prayers that overtly refer to a specific faith are okay—to a point.  Sectarian prayers can go too far

Posted 06 May 2014 in Commentary
In our earlier post, we reported the Supreme Court’s decision in Greece v. Galloway, 8468059167_e8ebfeedbf_zruling that the Town’s prayer practice is not an unconstitutional establishment of religion. This post tracks some commentary on the case: SCOTUSblog has been providing analysis of the divided decision:
The stark difference between the majority opinion in the Allegheny County case and the Court’s new opinion in the Town of Greece case illustrated the progress made by Justice Kennedy toward the Court’s full embrace — although for differing reasons among five Justices who determined the outcome – of the “coercion” test in determining whether a government practice amounted to an “establishment of religion” in violation of the First Amendment.
Eugene Volokh of UCLA School of Law provides his reactions: