May It Please The Court: Weblog of legal news and observations, including a quote of the day and daily updates

Skip To Content

MIPTC Author:

Bookstore:


Listed in Latino Who's Who, June 2014
 Attorney
Locations of visitors to this page

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.


Quote of the Day - All power corrupts, but we need the electricity. - Unknown
Adjust font size: A A+ A++
Claim Your Profile on Avvo
There are 2033 Journal Items on 255 page(s) and you are on page number 174

Use It And Lose It. Just Don't Blame The Insurance Commissioner.

You may have heard of the insurance industry's practice of use it and lose it. You know: make a claim and we won't renew your insurance policy, and we may even cancel you mid-stream.

What good is that kind of insurance?

The Insurance Commissioner tried to do something about it. In fact, he claims he's still going to try.

Despite today's court decision preventing him from doing so. The court ruled that the legislature didn't grant that extent of power to the Commissioner. Last year, he issued a regulation preventing the insurance companies in California from relying on "use it and lose it" underwriting practices to not issue policies. Insurers were using a databased called CLUE to find out if you or I had submitted a claim, and if so, we were blacklisted.

The insurance industry launched an attack against the Commissioner's regulation, and today, they appear to have won this round. Now, if you want to do something about it, contact your legislator.

Last year, the legislature had a chance to do something about it, but the bills died.

With all the rain we've had, it's going to be a problem for a lot of people in this state. Just what we need. We're going from brown mud to blacklisting.

Podcast 

Printer friendly page Permalink Email to a friend Posted by J. Craig Williams on Tuesday, March 01, 2005 at 18:13. Comments Closed (0) |

Vlawging Is Back On MIPTC, New and Improved

The vlawg is back. Just uploaded the show from Thursday. It's a word-for-word reading, but don't expect that to continue all the time. It was uploaded to see how the quality, lighting and format fare.

Let me know what you think. Comments and criticism are welcome. You can submit audio comments (call 206-338-3088), or if you prefer, video comments. MIPTC will post those, too, subject to certain undefined, subjective standards. Or just send me an email.

Others are vlogging, but MIPTC is vlawging.

Podcast 

Printer friendly page Permalink Email to a friend Posted by J. Craig Williams on Tuesday, March 01, 2005 at 16:05. Comments Closed (0) |

Blogger Ethics - Dealing With Plagiarism And Citation

The issue of blogger ethics is a very hot topic now, and rightfully so. While we're grappling with what blogging is all about, it's an easy thing to miss. That last link is an excellent analysis and good starting point.

The aspect of right and wrong isn't so hard to grasp. Many of us, if not all of us, already understand it. That said, mistakes get made. In fact, mistakes get made by mainstream media about bloggers. Take the recent example of the National Law Journal's article (subscription required), taken in large part from the UCL practitioner. The blogger, Kimberly Kralowec, was "flattered that the NLJ was reading my blog and relied on my work," but "disappointed" they didn't credit her.

When called on it, the NLJ issued a clarification here. Surprisingly, the clarification doesn't appear with the actual story, but that's typical of printed newspapers. Should the clarification appear with the actual story? It's not that hard to do on the web.

How can bloggers avoid the same mistake?

Provide credit where credit is due. Given that most bloggers have some advanced training in English, most of us have at least a passing understanding of plagiarism. If you're going to copy someone else's work, provide credit.

What's the format? Try this one out: Who, What, Where and When. List the author, the title of the author's work, the location (easy to do on the web with hyperlinks) and when the work was published. That information should pass even the toughest muster.

Sometimes, blogging is original ideas. Sometimes, it's commentary on someone else's ideas or news source. When you comment or copy, cite. It's that simple.

Blogging is coming of age, and it's time we start developing some ethical standards and common understandings. I'm not quite sure we're all ready for this level of commitment, though.

Podcast 

Printer friendly page Permalink Email to a friend Posted by J. Craig Williams on Monday, February 28, 2005 at 13:40. Comments Closed (0) |

If Only Someone Would Advise Me

You're driving across country, filling up at every gas station. You live in New York, and you're on the way to California.

Do you have to pay the taxes on the gas in the states in between? Unfortunately, yes.

What if you were an airline, say Hawaiian Airlines, and you flew over international waters? Assume, for the purposes of this somewhat futile exercise, that you knew of an exemption for foreign trade (this link is not the correct exemption, and such an exemption does not actually exist). But, play along for a bit longer.

You might, if you didn't know any better, claim a $11.3 million tax credit. If you were Hawaiian Airlines, in bankruptcy, and seeking a way out.

Good thing you relied on someone else's advice.

The IRS tried to slap a $40 million penalty on Hawaiian Airlines for that little tax maneuver. Apparently, Hawaiian Airlines was later informed by Ernst & Young that tax advice was wrong, and the company restated its financials.

When the IRS sought its tax penalty, it got stopped by a Federal judge in Hawaii who ruled that because Hawaiian Airlines relied in good faith on tax advice, they didn't have to pay the $40 million penalty.

Alooooha!

Now, about that gas tax....

Podcast 

Printer friendly page Permalink Email to a friend Posted by J. Craig Williams on Monday, February 28, 2005 at 12:50. Comments Closed (0) |

MIPTC's Friday Series: Grape Radio Looks At Your Sommelier.

As a companion service to MIPTC's Friday At The Movie series, my other buddies want to encourage you to drink some wine with that popcorn. So, give a listen to their podcast spotlighting blind tastings. Here's what the guys have to say:

Grape Radio #9: Did you ever notice a guy with that funny thing around his neck and a corkscrew in his hand? He is probably a sommelier, and you'll find him in top flight restaurants that call for top flight service. Today’s guest, Brian Harley, is the sommelier at one of Southern California premier restaurants. Since 1972, The Hobbit has been known as a unique dining experience, offering a seven-course, prix-fixe menu and of course, top wines. In fact, Wine Spectator Magazine has rated it as having one of the country’s finest wine cellars.

Podcast 

Printer friendly page Permalink Email to a friend Posted by Brian, Leigh and Jay on Friday, February 25, 2005 at 13:24. Comments Closed (0) |

MIPTC's Friday At The Movie Series: Reel Reviews Looks at: Raging Bull

It's Friday again, and time for another installment in the Friday At The Movies series, brought to you by my friend Michael Geoghegan. Here it is:

Reel Review #27: Raging Bull is widely acknowledged as the best film from the Eighties. With expert guidance from Director Martin Scorsese and amazing performances turned in by Robert De Niro, Cathy Moriarty and Joe Pesci - Raging Bull is not one to be missed. A brand new Special Edition DVD release makes now a great time to dive into this spectacular film.

Raging Bull DVD at Amazon

IMDb

Podcast 

Printer friendly page Permalink Email to a friend Posted by Michael Geoghegan on Friday, February 25, 2005 at 12:49. Comments Closed (0) |

Testing The Boundaries of The Fifth Amendment's Public Use Requirement

What is eminent domain? It's the right of the government to condemn your property without your consent for public use upon payment of just compensation. How's that for a mouthful?

Today's dispute centers on the definition of public interest.

New London, Connecticut, is the hotbed for this question. The City wants to condemn homes for a development to build a conference center, hotel complex, offices, condominiums, and eventually, an aquarium. The complex would be built by private developers.

The homeowners charge that it's essentially corporate welfare. The government, on the other hand, claims the condemnation falls within their power. Whatever the Supreme Court's decision is, it will have far-reaching effects.

It's the last phrase of the Fifth Amendment that we're fighting over.

How far does the government's power reach? Usually redevelopment is fairly easy, within some boundaries. Property is blighted, contaminated, run-down or some other problem exists. The citizens want the place cleaned up and returned to productive use.

What about the case here, where the homes in the Fort Trumbull area are fine? No one is complaining. The lawns are kept up, cars parked in the garage. Right there next to the Eagle, the ship I sailed on in the 1976 Tall Ships Race. It's Main Street America.

New London will make more tax revenue from the development. It will also provide more shopping and potentially a public aquarium.

Who's right? How would you want the Supreme Court to rule?

Podcast  Vidcast

Printer friendly page Permalink Email to a friend Posted by J. Craig Williams on Thursday, February 24, 2005 at 11:19. Comments Closed (1) |

Fifth Circuit Figures Out An End Run

We're a step closer to one of the two questions left open by the Supremes in Cooper Industries. That's the case where the Supreme Court decided that if you volunteer to clean up contaminated property, you can't recover your costs to do so.

No kidding. I was surprised, too.

Now, the Fifth Circuit sent the case back to the District Court. The trial court is set to determine whether the Plaintiff, Aviall, can assert a claim under CERCLA section 107(a)(4)(B). Section 107 allows for cost-recovery suits for response costs incurred by the government and certain others, as long as the cleanup is consistent with the National Contingency Plan.

Aviall gets a "do over." A tabular rosa (clean slate). It can assert its claims against Cooper Industries, and Cooper Industries can assert its defenses.

Hopefully, we'll get a more reasoned decision this time around. Maybe one that makes sense, too.

Podcast 

Printer friendly page Permalink Email to a friend Posted by J. Craig Williams on Wednesday, February 23, 2005 at 23:39. Comments Closed (0) |



Page:  << Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  29  30  31  32  33  34  35  36  37  38  39  40  41  42  43  44  45  46  47  48  49  50  51  52  53  54  55  56  57  58  59  60  61  62  63  64  65  66  67  68  69  70  71  72  73  74  75  76  77  78  79  80  81  82  83  84  85  86  87  88  89  90  91  92  93  94  95  96  97  98  99  100  101  102  103  104  105  106  107  108  109  110  111  112  113  114  115  116  117  118  119  120  121  122  123  124  125  126  127  128  129  130  131  132  133  134  135  136  137  138  139  140  141  142  143  144  145  146  147  148  149  150  151  152  153  154  155  156  157  158  159  160  161  162  163  164  165  166  167  168  169  170  171  172  173  174 175  176  177  178  179  180  181  182  183  184  185  186  187  188  189  190  191  192  193  194  195  196  197  198  199  200  201  202  203  204  205  206  207  208  209  210  211  212  213  214  215  216  217  218  219  220  221  222  223  224  225  226  227  228  229  230  231  232  233  234  235  236  237  238  239  240  241  242  243  244  245  246  247  248  249  250  251  252  253  254  255  Next >>

Back to top.