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 - Everything you have wants to own you. - Regina Eilert
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 238

Handwritten Note may Force $16.5 Million Purchase

Be careful what you sign.

Although this case isn't over yet, it certainly took a turn for the worse for Lawrence Taylor, a general partner of the Santa Monica Collection (SMC). Who?

Well, apparently, Taylor asked Donald Sterling about purchasing real estate properties. Sterling agreed to purchase the properties. Sterling then prepared a handwritten document that listed three street addresses in Santa Monicaand a sales price of $16.75 million.

Got that? Handwritten.

Taylor never bought the properties. As expected, Sterling sued Taylor to enforce the agreement. A trial court decided that the handwritten document contained terms that were too uncertain to be enforceable under the statute of frauds.

In short, the statute of frauds requires that some contracts, including those for the sale of real property, be in writing and signed by the party that agrees to perform (here, Taylor).

To qualify, the handwritten note must at least include a description of the property and the price to be paid.

The California Court of Appeal, Second District held that the handwritten document met those qualifications, and sent the case back to the trial court for the judge to decide if the agreement was actually enforceable under the remaining requirements of the statute of frauds.

Taylor may have to buy the three properties yet. With his luck, though, the value will have dropped, too.

Next time he wants to buy property, I bet he uses a lawyer to draft up the purchase agreement.

Printer friendly page Permalink Email to a friend Posted by J. Craig Williams on Friday, November 28, 2003 at 16:49. Comments Closed (0) |

A Bright Star in Heaven

The legal community mourns the untimely death of one of its bright stars the day before Thanksgiving. Paralegal Susan Wheeler died earlier this week after a long battle with breast cancer. She brought a brighter day to those who knew her, especially in her final days. Susan worked for Palmieri, Tyler, Wiener, Wilhelm & Waldron before her illness. She is survived by her son Derek. Many will miss her.

Printer friendly page Permalink Email to a friend Posted by J. Craig Williams on Friday, November 28, 2003 at 16:11. Comments Closed (0) |

From CNN to ENN - Around the Environmental World

First we had CNN, and now we have ENN - Environmental News Network. It appears to be largely a "mother earth" oriented site, with news about recycling and polls on gas mileage and salmon (don't ask me why they go together).

ENN claims to have 25,000 weekly subscribers, and up on the internet since 1995. Where have I been? ENN's site is very slick, informative and they even have a radio show.

Not here. Although I used to be a DJ when I was in college, but then again, don't a lot of us make that claim? Oh well. I wonder if Matt Drudge has a radio show?

On ENN, you can get in-depth coverage of various environmental topics, such as water, and of course includes a Hydropower Quiz. I didn't do too well, though, and didn't know that Canada had the most hydroelectric dams.

It's a great educational site, but it presents a one-sided look at environmental issues. Still, it's a good way to become informed. Well worth a visit.

Printer friendly page Permalink Email to a friend Posted by J. Craig Williams on Thursday, November 27, 2003 at 09:07. Comments Closed (0) |

Perish the Thought - Citing Unpublished Opinions

In California, we’re used to it. You can't cite an unpublished opinion to either a state or federal court. So is the law in 38 other states. But if you’re in Delaware, you may cite such an opinion, as you can in 9 other states.

Why is this a big deal? Right now, the federal courts are considering changing their rules to allow lawyers to cite unpublished opinions. It’s a scary prospect. The body of unpublished opinions is large, almost incomprehensible when compared to published opinions. In 1999, the Ninth Circuit issued 700 published opinions, and 3800 unpublished opinions. That’s just one year, and only one of 12 circuits. You do the math, I can’t.

The distinction is important. Published opinions go through as many as 80 drafts and can take weeks or months of preparation time, but unpublished opinions are drafted in as little as a day, and summarily sent to the parties with little revision. So, we have this whole body of unpublished opinions that do not rise to the same quality level as published opinions.

We can all rely on published opinions as precedential law. Unpublished opinions obviously do not have the same value. Unpublished opinions are simply the appellate court’s responses to the individual parties in cases where the judges do not feel that the opinion qualifies to be published as a clarification or change in the law, and it allows the courts to decide many more cases than they would be able to do otherwise.

There are those who are in favor of allowing citation to unpublished opinions. To quote one jurist, “Lawyers sometimes darkly suggest that unpublished dispositions make up a secret body of law wholly at odds with our published decisions – that unpublished dispositions mark out a zone where no law prevails, but only the predilections and preferences of the judges.”

But, that is not the case. According to the same jurist, “We ... [are] baffled by the claim because none of us perceives that this is what we are doing. These claims are always made with reference to some unnamed earlier case; lawyers seldom, if ever, present concrete evidence of lawlessness in unpublished dispositions to back up their claims. This is surprising because if the practice were happening with any frequency, the losing lawyers would have every incentive to make a fuss about it.”

Obviously, that doesn’t happen.

All of these unpublished opinions are available for research on Lexis and Westlaw, but are not citable to the Courts because of their obvious deficiencies compared to published opinions. Often, if I find a particularly persuasive unpublished opinion, I don’t cite it, I just use the applicable arguments.

I think this method is much more in line with the rules of the court, and still allows me to have the best of both worlds. I have been on the receiving end of unpublished opinions before, and I know that my clients preferred at least getting that much compared to a simple rebuff entitled “Affirmed” or “Denied,” which is the likely result if this rule goes through.

There’s two positions in opposition to this idea. First, leave the existing rules intact. Otherwise, if the courts are going to legislate a national rule, prohibit citation to unpublished opinions.

If you’d like to be heard on these points, and want your voice to make a difference, Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Alex Kozinski is interested in this issue and you can get more information if you contact him. You can email him at: kozinski@usc.edu.

Speak out or you’ll have no one to blame but yourself. Rock the Vote!

Printer friendly page Permalink Email to a friend Posted by J. Craig Williams on Wednesday, November 26, 2003 at 08:05. Comments Closed (1) |

Pumping Water Turns into Fire

Ice Mountain Spring Water, a bottled water company, was ordered to stop drawing water from wells in Michigan. The Judge in the case ruled that the operation has damaged the environment.

Ice Mountain is owned by Nestle Waters of North America. Nestle produces other water products including Poland Spring, Arrowhead (a local California company) and Deer Park.

Environmentalists sued Ice Mountain, and claimed that the pumping operation drained nearby lakes, streams and wetlands.

The dispute involves four wells in Mecosta County, in western Michigan. The Michigan Department of Environmental Quality's water division had granted a permit allowing Ice Mountain's water-bottling plant to withdraw up to 400 gallons per minute, or 576,000 gallons per day.

Since production started, the plant's average pumping rate has been around 200 to 250 gallons per minute, company spokeswoman Deborah Wudyka said.

Now, nothing is being pumped.

Ice Mountain Spring Water spokeswoman Deborah Muchmore said the ruling was unwarranted and "quite extreme." She said the company will appeal.

Terry Swier, a founder of Michigan Citizens for Water Conservation, said the judge's decision "sets the stage for another big piece of the puzzle and that is getting water legislation in Michigan - some strong water legislation."

The debate over the water pumping nearly turned violent in September. Ice Mountain workers discovered a broken glass-block window and found unexploded, homemade firebombs while making a routine check at one of the company's stations. The Earth Liberation Front was blamed for the incident. The FBI is investigating.

I don't know why. The ELF claimed responsibility for the firebombs. Maybe the Fibbies missed that part.

Printer friendly page Permalink Email to a friend Posted by J. Craig Williams on Tuesday, November 25, 2003 at 19:05. Comments Closed (0) |

WLF is Growing, and Adding New Lawyers

I'm pleased to announce that we've added two lawyers to our letterhead: Craig E. Lindberg and Charles J. Bennett.

Both lawyers practice litigation, and you can pass along your congratulations to them at these email addresses: Charles J. Bennett and Craig E. Lindberg. I'm sure they'd appreciate hearing from you.

Printer friendly page Permalink Email to a friend Posted by J. Craig Williams on Tuesday, November 25, 2003 at 17:16. Comments Closed (0) |

Insurers Held to Tight Deadlines

Much of my practice includes dealing with insurance companies, which is inevitably frustrated by untimely responses. You tender a claim, and the carrier gets back to you sometime in six months. California has a Fair Claims act that requires a coverage determination within 40 days.

Insurers rarely meet that deadline. We then take carriers to task for those and other eggregious violations. Run this search and you'll discovery a veritable gaggle of Plaintiff's bad faith lawyers.

In New York, the Court of Appeals (the highest court in the State of New York) just held that a 48-delay is unreasonable as a matter of law.

For Chief Judge Judith Kaye (or any judge), those (as a matter of law) are strong words. Words that attorneys can use to deal with recalcitrant insurance companies.

The Bad Faith lawyers have to love this decision.



Printer friendly page Permalink Email to a friend Posted by J. Craig Williams on Monday, November 24, 2003 at 18:59. Comments Closed (0) |

What Do You Do When You're Not Working?

So it's Sunday Night, and we're done with the Extreme Gardening for the day, which included a water fountain and way, way too many begonias, pansies and mums.

Most of the time, I write about legal news and typically include a bit of my sarcastic commentary. Tonight, though, I want to encourage you to take in a movie. You know, one of those things that you do when you're not working. Typically at night.

Anyway, we go in to the theater, and it's packed. We can barely find seats, and actually have to ask people to move over and make room. It's Love Actually, and it's a pre-holiday movie.

Great soundtrack, about 10 different subplots, and really fun. You'll be glad you took the time.

Oh, yeah - bring a date, preferably someone you like, love or just enjoy being with.

Printer friendly page Permalink Email to a friend Posted by J. Craig Williams on Sunday, November 23, 2003 at 22:13. 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.