Here is what future lawyers are learning at the flagship U.S. law school: The Evidence Exam at Harvard Law That Requires No Evidence to Pass (via Above the Law).
Here is what future lawyers are learning at one of the premiere Chinese law schools:
Continue Reading U.S. Law School Curriculum vs. Chinese Law School Curriculum
In Landlord’s Uphill Fight to Ease Rent Restrictions, The New York Times reports on the Harmon cert petition (we posted the petition and the amici briefs in that case here), a challenge to New York City’s rent control ordinance.
We won’t rehash our thoughts on the case, but wanted to point out what we thought was the most revealing passage from the Times article:
Mr. Harmon said he had appealed to his assemblywoman, Linda B. Rosenthal, a strong supporter of rent regulations. Ms. Rosenthal said Mr. Harmon had asked for an exception to rent regulations for his building, which she found untenable because it would, she said, extend to thousands of other people in “the vanishing middle class.”
“I understand he thinks he could make more money, that he is being deprived,” she said. “But I have so many constituents who would willingly trade his problems for theirs.”
Here’s the amicus brief of the American Association for Justice (fka Association of Trial Lawyers of America) supporting the respondent in Filarksy v. Delia, No. 10-1018 (cert. granted Sep. 27, 2011), the case in which the U.S. Supreme Court is considering whether a private lawyer hired by a local government is entitled to claim the same immunities from section 1983 lawsuits as his government-employed counterparts.
Earlier, we filed an amicus brief on behalf of the American Bar Association supporting the petitioner, and other organization also filed briefs in support (posted here). The petitioner’s merits brief is posted here. Oral argument is set for January 17, 2012.
More on this case as it becomes available.Continue Reading Trial Lawyers’ Amicus Brief In Filarsky: Common Law Did Not Recognize Private Attorney Immunity In 1871
SCOTUSblog has listed a case we’ve been following, Arkansas Game & Fish Comm’n v. United States, as its “petition of the day” (cert petitions identified as “raising one or more questions that have a reasonable chance of being granted in an appropriate case”). SCOUTSblog posts the cert petition and the amicus briefs in support here.
In that case, the Federal Circuit in a 2-1 opinion concluded that temporary flooding is not a compensable taking, merely because they were temporary. The dissenting judge concluded that temporary flooding was no different in kind than more permanent flooding that occurs in other inverse condemnation cases, and regularly results in awards of compensation.
We posted the Federal Circuit’s opinion here, and the Supreme Court’s docket report is here.
The Question Presented by the cert petition:
Petitioner Arkansas Game & Fish Commission, a constitutional entity of the State of Arkansas, sought
Continue Reading New Cert Petition: Is Temporary Flooding A Compensable Taking?
Count us in the “not surprised” column: the property owners have sought a panel rehearing or a rehearing en banc from the Federal Circuit in CCA Associates v. United States, No. 2010-5100 -5101 (Nov. 21, 2011).
The petition for rehearing asserts
If any case cried out for en banc review, this is the one. The decisions of this Circuit regarding the effect of the ELIHPA and LIHPRHA statutes are in conflict, not only with each other, but also with settled law on regulatory takings and contract formation. The panel majority acknowledged this conflict but held that it had no choice but to follow the Court’s decisions in Cienega Gardens v. United States, 503 F.3d 1266 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (“Cienega X“) and Ciegega Gardens v. United States, 194 F.3d 1231 (Fed Cir. 1998) (“Cienega IV“).
The exceptionally important issues presented by this petition, including
Continue Reading Petition For Rehearing/En Banc In CCA Associates: Time To “Sort Out” Takings Law
China has been on our mind lately. Maybe it’s our recent attendance at the Brigham-Kanner property rights conference held in Beijing in October. Maybe it’s last week’s talk to our law firm by an old friend on lessons that can be learned from China’s move from communism to a market economy.
Whatever is causing China to be on our radar lately, here’s the latest big story, on Wukan, the village presently under seige after a mass protest objecting to the sale of village land for real estate development. The above video is not in English, but it doesn’t take a translator to get the drift. The print media is also reporting on the situation:
Gideon Kanner has also been following the story (start here
My old friend and law school classmate Laurence Brahm is in town for a few weeks as a visiting fellow at the East-West Center, and took some time off last week from finishing his latest book to come down to our law firm and share his views on the issues of the day. Here’s his talk on the future of the economy, the political situation, and lessons to be learned from China’s experience:
Stream it above or download it here (24mb mp3).
In that same vein, here’s Laurence’s latest article from YaleGlobal Online, “A Global Consensus to Rise and Occupy.”
Agree or disagree, Laurence’s views are very thought-provoking. Continue Reading Podcast: The Economy, Politics, And Lessons From China
Here’s the respondent’s merits brief in Filarksy v. Delia, No. 10-1018 (cert. granted Sep. 27, 2011), the case in which the U.S. Supreme Court is considering whether a private lawyer hired by a local government is entitled to claim the same immunities from section 1983 lawsuits as his government-employed counterparts.
We filed an amicus brief supporting the petitioner for the American Bar Association, arguing that he should be able to claim those immunities. Other amici weighed in on the petitioner’s side also.
Brief of Respondent, Filarsky v Delia, No. 10-1018 (filed 12-14-2011)bsContinue Reading Respondent’s Merits Brief In Filarksy: Is A Private Lawyer Retained To Represent Government Entitled To Claim Qualified Immunity?
We’re gearing up for a Supreme Court argument tomorrow, so don’t have time at the moment to digest the entirety of today’s opinion in Avenida San Juan P’ship v. City of San Clemente, No. G043479 (Cal. Ct. App. Dec. 14, 2011). But a quick glance tells us we’re going to like it.
A California trial court concluded that the city’s zoning a 2.85 acre parcel with a density of one house per 20 acres, while the surrounding properties are zoned at a density of four houses per acre was unconsitutional “spot zoning.” The court issued a writ of mandate (remember, this is California) ordering the City to accept the property owner’s application to develop four houses on the parcel.
The trial court also found a Penn Central taking and ordered the City to either comply with the writ or pay $1.3 million in just compensation for the
A vast majority of the court clerks in the jurisdictions in which we practice are really very good: they are patient, understanding, professional, and accepting of the mistakes of counsel or their staff when we’re not aware of the intricacies of local procedure. Bless these clerks, they make the practice of law much easier.
But practice long enough, and you will have met at least one court-clerk-from-hell. You know, the one who seems bound and determined to not let you file your brief (due today), to “bounce” your document for violating subsection (A)(2)(c)(ii) of the local rules, or simply because the margins on your brief “seem off” (many years ago, this actually happened and as God is my witness, the clerk whipped out a measuring tape and checked).
For those of us who have had that experience, here’s today’s dose of schadenfreude. In Voit v. Superior Court, No.
