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.


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 177

MIPTC's Friday Series: Grape Radio's Winemaker Spotlight: Greg Sanders

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 a winemaker. Here's what the guys have to say:

Grape Radio #6: Get up close and personal with an actual winemaker. Greg Sanders, Owner of White Rose Wines is our special guest. Greg discusses his personal approach, wine making operations, and much more.

The Oregon wine regions are producing world class wines. You can find more information about Greg’s wines at: White Rose Wines

Podcast 

Printer friendly page Permalink Email to a friend Posted by Brian, Lee and Jay on Friday, February 11, 2005 at 20:44. Comments Closed (0) |

MIPTC's Friday At The Movies Series: Reel Reviews Looks At: Rushmore

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 #19: Sic transit gloria - glory fades. I figured we’d start off with a little Latin in honor of the first Reel Review for 2005 - Rushmore. This is another personal favorite that I often recommend. Rushmore is a film that you can always count on for a good time. It is Wes Anderson’s sophomore effort after gaining critical success for his first film Bottle Rocket. Best of all, you get to enjoy a home run performance by Bill Murray. Check out Rushmore - a film worth watching.

DVD - Rushmore - Criterion Edition Collection

DVD - Rushmore

IMDb

Podcast 

Printer friendly page Permalink Email to a friend Posted by Michael Geoghegan on Friday, February 11, 2005 at 20:34. Comments Closed (0) |

Momma, Don't Let Your Babies Grow Up To Be Criminals

Fresh out of law school, I volunteered for the San Bernardino County District Attorney as a Deputy DA prosecutor. After having tried small-time criminal cases in law school (with a professor in tow) for the public defender's office, it was quite a mindset switch.

I prosecuted drunk driving cases, prostitution cases, petty theft and a host of other misdemeanor crimes. The underbelly of civilization.

One case I remember most was a mother who taught her 12-year old son how to switch the price tags on jeans at the Sears store in the local mall. Shoplifting was the charge.

For about $10.00. Sears was adamant to prosecute the matter. Most people thought it wasn't a big deal, and not a big case. Most of the other DAs in the office thought I'd lose it. I was up against a very experienced criminal lawyer who was good at charming juries. I was a wet-behind-the-ears, first-year lawyer.

It wasn't until I started to make my closing argument to the jury that I figured out how to pitch the case. It wasn't the $10.00 that was the point.

It was the fact that a mother was teaching her child to steal.

Now before you go any further, check out that last link. Think about why the trial court judge in that case didn't get it, and why it took five justices on an appellate court to drive the point home.

By the way, my 12-person jury got it. Mom was convicted, and the sentence involved counseling for both Mom and son.

Podcast 

Printer friendly page Permalink Email to a friend Posted by J. Craig Williams on Thursday, February 10, 2005 at 19:37. Comments Closed (2) |

Your Opportunity To Fill In The Blank For The FCC

You may not know it, but your television isn't going to get any bigger. At least if you have cable.

What you say? There's already 13 channels on my TV, and there's nothing on?

The Federal Communications Commission just voted not to require cable companies to carry more than one digital signal from local television stations.

I love the quote offered in the FindLaw link above: "The commission's only dissenter, Republican Kevin Martin said, 'The public could have benefited from more free programming.'"

Just what we need. More (you fill in the blank) on the TV.

Podcast 

Printer friendly page Permalink Email to a friend Posted by J. Craig Williams on Wednesday, February 09, 2005 at 19:16. Comments Closed (0) |

Volunteerism Shot Down By Courts

The fallout from the Supreme Court's decision Cooper Industries continues. In the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, that court just went two steps further than the recent Supreme Court decision.

Cooper Industries held that CERCLA section 113 did not allow recovery for voluntary cleanups. But it left open the question of whether such costs could be recovered under CERCLA sections 106 or 107). Section 106 enables the government to compel (read: order) private parties to undertake cleanup of contaminated sites. 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.

The New York court just decided the case of Elementis Chemicals Inc. v. T H Agriculture and Nutrition LLC (subscription required, and only available on PACER, not the Court's website). It went further than precedent, and dismissed plaintiff's claims that defendants were liable under CERCLA for its response costs. The court also rejected Elementis Chemical's arguments that it was entitled to recover voluntary response costs.

If that continues to be the law, we can expect good corporate citizens who want to voluntarily clean up contamination will not be able to afford to do so.

Podcast 

Printer friendly page Permalink Email to a friend Posted by J. Craig Williams on Tuesday, February 08, 2005 at 11:43. Comments Closed (0) |

Lead-based Paint Suit Hits The Wall In Illinois

Lead-based paint has been a problem for both government and businesses for some time. Decades, in fact.

Chicago apparently decided to get creative and brought a nuisance action against several businesses that produced lead-based paint. Last month, the Illinois Court of Appeal upheld the trial court's dismissal of the case.

The Appeals Court dug deep into the tort closet and pulled out some colorful language to emphasize why it agreed with the dismissal. It thought the lead-based paint applied many years ago was not the legal cause of the problem sought to be remedied by the City of Chicago.

"What we do mean by the word 'proximate' is that, because of convenience, of public policy, of a rough sense of justice, the law arbitrarily declines to trace a series of events beyond a certain point. This is not logic. It is practical politics." That gem comes from the dissent of Justice Andrews in the seminal case of Palsgraf v. Long Island Railroad,

The Illinois Court continued, "We agree with the sentiment expressed by some courts that 'at some point along the causal chain, the passage of time and the span of distance mandate a cut-off point for liability.' "

Is there a remedy for every wrong? Even years later?

Podcast 

Printer friendly page Permalink Email to a friend Posted by J. Craig Williams on Monday, February 07, 2005 at 11:31. Comments Closed (0) |

MIPTC Votes For Best Super Bowl Commercial

Best Super Bowl commercial?

MIPTC votes for Herosalute.com.

Your opinion?

Podcast 

Printer friendly page Permalink Email to a friend Posted by J. Craig Williams on Monday, February 07, 2005 at 08:25. Comments Closed (1) |

Durango Duo Delivered Dough; Dealt Dollar Deficiency

or, Will The Real Cookie Monster Stand Up?

OK, I'll bite.

Two Durango, Colorado teenagers elected to stay home one summer evening instead of attending a dance. Not big news.

They decided to bake cookies and deliver them to their neighbors, complete with construction paper cut-out hearts that said, "Have a great night." Still not big news.

Until they got sued.

For delivering cookies to their neighbors at 10:30 at night.

Go ahead. Read that last sentence again. Try to figure out what tort they committed. What did they do wrong?

According to a small claims judge, they did $900 worth of wrong. A neighbor who received the cookies got frightened when the girls delivered the cookies by "banging and banging" on the door, and when the neighbor answered it and asked who was there, no one answered. She saw figures running off.

She thought the "figures" were burglars. With a call to the sheriff, she determined nothing was wrong, and that the cookie delivery was alright. But she was still shaken up. She left home, shaking and with an upset stomach, to stay at a friend's house. Not better by the next morning, she went to the hospital with what she thought might be a heart attack.

Some $900 later, she went home. She raised a ruckus about it, and the teenager's families apologized and offered to pay her medical expenses. She declined, saying that the apologies "rang false," according to the February 6, 2005 Denver Post article.

Then, the neighbor sued. For $3,000. She criticized the girls and said they "showed very poor judgment." The Judge awarded $1.00 plus the neighbor's expenses. He didn't award punitive damages, or the neighbor's request for motion-sensitive lights for her front porch.

So, who's the cookie monster here?

Judge, neighbor or teenage girls?

Podcast 

Printer friendly page Permalink Email to a friend Posted by J. Craig Williams on Sunday, February 06, 2005 at 16:11. Comments Closed (2) |



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.