This is one of the best articles I have read in a long time, coming from a man who I have cited often but never met: Max Kennerly.
A short sample:
At these pre-trial events [hearings, pretrial conferences, etc.], the only thing stopping a lawyer from looking the judge in the eye and telling him or her an outright lie is that oath the lawyer made to the government years ago.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit has ruled that the 30-day period for removing a case to federal court does not begin to run until "the plaintiff serves the defendant with a paper that explicitly identified the amount of damages sought."
Moltner sued Starbucks in state court in New York but did not state the amount of damages he sought. Moltner’s lawyer later sent a three million dollar demand letter to Starbucks. Starbucks filed a petition to remove the case to federal court more than 30 days after it received the complaint but less than 30 days after receiving the $3 million demand. The Second Circuit permitted the removal, rejecting the argument that Starbucks should have deduced from reading the complaint that the case sought damages in excess of the jurisdictional amount of the federal courts.
Here is the opinion in Moltner v. Starbucks Coffee Company, No. 09-4943 (2nd Cir. Nov. 2, 2010).
Oral arguments were heard two months ago in Williamson v. Mazda Motors of America, and when the United States Supreme Court decides the case we will have a better understanding of the law of preemption.
At issue is whether a National Highway Traffic Safety Administration rule permitting the use of Type1 seat belts (lap belt only) in the middle seat of passenger vehicles preempts a claim by an injured passenger that the manufacturer should have installed a Type 2 belt (includes a shoulder harness) in the vehicle.
The California Court of Appeals held that the claim was preempted. The California Supreme Court refused to hear the case. The US Supreme Court heard oral arguments on the case on November 3.
Payscale.com has posted data on the pay for lawyers. On average, associates with at least three years of experience earn $75,400 per year. Lawyers with 10-15 years of experience earn an average of $123,000 per year.
Thanks to Lawyers USA for sharing this data.
Are you an iPad user? Here is a new app that facilitates jury selection. Here is a video on how to use the app.
Turn to Tablet Legal for more information about how to use the iPad in your practice.
The Tennessee Bar Association has graciously permitted me to write a column on tort law for many years. I must admit that I enjoy writing these articles, although I must also admit that each time the calendar reminder pops-up on my computer reminding me of yet another deadline for yet another article a small groan slips out from my aging body.
The January 2011edition of the Journal is now available. My newest article is titled "Presents From ‘Round Back of the Tree." The article alerts readers to two recent Court of Criminal Appeals cases that may be of assistance to tort lawyers as they attempt to prove John Doe UM claims.
Confused? Here are the first three paragraphs (footnotes omitted). Read them and see if you can figure out where the article is headed.
I will be speaking on a Webcast seminar on January 5, 2011 at Noon CST discussing the developments in the law of notice and certificates of good faith in medical malpractice cases. I will also discuss service of process issues after the decision in Hall v. Haynes.
The seminar is sponsored by the Tennessee Bar Association. The price is $45 for TBA members and $65 for non-TBA members. One hour of CLE credit will be earned.
Register here.
Bill Marler has shared this summary of the new food safety legislation with us. Bill actively worked to get this bill passed.
· S. 510 is intended to respond to several food safety outbreaks in recent years by strengthening the authority of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and redoubling its efforts to prevent and respond to food safety concerns.
· The legislation expands current registration and inspection authority for FDA, and re-focuses FDA’s inspection regime based on risk assessments, such that high-risk facilities will be inspected more frequently. The bill also requires food processors to conduct a hazard analysis of their facilities and implement a plan to minimize those hazards.
Once again, I feel compelled to share the good work of Elliott Wilcox at Winning Trial Advocacy Tips. Elliott reminds us that we lose the power of an effective cross-examination when we convene with co-counsel and the end of good cross. He offers this tip:
To take advantage of recency during your next examination, don’t wait until the very end of your examination to ask for help. Instead, keep a handful of questions on a major topic in reserve before asking to confer with co-counsel. Once you’ve concluded your off-the-record conversation, return to the lectern and hit the witness with your final series of questions. Much like the encore at a concert, this series of questions will be more memorable, because it stands out from the rest of your examination. All that’s left to do is smash a guitar against the witness stand, so that when you walk offstage your jurors will be left with the impression that your examination was a “smashing” success!
Add Elliott’s blog to your RSS reader.
The Internet provides all of us easy access to information, and it is no surprise to anyone that jurors are going there to get data during trials.
This article from MSN reveals that "Reuters Legal, using data from the Westlaw online research service, a Thomson Reuters business, compiled a tally of reported decisions in which judges granted a new trial, denied a request for a new trial, or overturned a verdict, in whole or in part, because of juror actions related to the Internet. The data show that since 1999, at least 90 verdicts have been the subject of challenges because of alleged Internet-related juror misconduct. More than half of the cases occurred in the last two years."
Here is recent post about an effort of the Committee on Court Administration and Case Management of the United States Judicial Conference to develop pattern jury instructions to address the increasing incidence of juror use of such devices as cellular telephones or computers to conduct research on the Internet or communicate with others about cases.
