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 - It is vital to the nation that we retain those women who seek graduate degrees. Otherwise, we will lose our lead in innovation and ultimately our standard of living, as well as national security. - Arthur Bienenstock
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 249

Canadian Women Obtain More Law Degrees

More Canadian women than men are graduating with law degress. Today's Ottowa Citizen published a news article citing a recent news article citing a study performed by the Association for Canadian Studies about the results.

While some are excited about the results, the news is not all good. "Only about 20 percent of all women hold university degrees," said Dr. Jo-Anne Lee, a professor in women's studies at the University of Victoria. Even among those with degrees, she doubted many were able to achieve the highest positions in their professions.

Printer friendly page Permalink Email to a friend Posted by J. Craig Williams on Sunday, September 14, 2003 at 08:25. Comments Closed (0) |

Litigation + Budget Crisis = Taxifornia

Some seven months after introducing the bill, California State Senator Joe Dunn's SB 796 looks poised to pass into law. It may be a first for the Left Coast.

The bill empowers workers to sue bosses over wage and hour violations. Given the State's budget crises, it appears that the Labor and Workforce Development Agency doesn't have the budget for enforcement.

Instead, Senator Joe Dunn promises to put that power in the hands of the people. Unfortunately for the worker, however, the recovery is split three ways, with the worker getting only 25%, and the other 75% flowing into the State's hands. Now that's a creative way to solve California's budget crisis. The Assembly just passed the bill, so it's on to the Governor's office.

Will Gray Davis sign it? Does he need votes?

Printer friendly page Permalink Email to a friend Posted by J. Craig Williams on Saturday, September 13, 2003 at 06:42. Comments Closed (0) |

Plenty Of Dogs In This Fight

Dinky the talking Chihuahua can't sport one of those T-shirts that reads: "If you can't run with the Big Dogs, get off of the porch." Previously relegated only to TV commercials hawking burritos, he's now starring in a Michigan courtroom.

Two men, claiming to have created the talking Chichuahua, sued Taco Bell for ownership of the mascot. Plaintiff's attorney Douglas Dozeman stated, "my clients created a licensed character named 'Psycho Chihuahua,' which was then adapted and used by Taco Bell in the ads." Dinky is the name of the actual dog that played the part of the Chichuahua in the ads.

Dozemons's clients won. Big. Now they're the ones on the porch.

But not satisfied with the paltry $30.2M victory highlighted in Justice Bedsworth's weblog, the two men went for the gusto, and ended up with mucho gusto. In post-trial motions, Federal District Court Judge Gordon J. Quist awarded an extra $11.8M in interest on top of the judgment.

Dozeman said: "Sooner or later, Taco Bell is going to run out of issues, and Joe and Tom will finally be able to receive the proper compensation for their intellectual property." Taco Bell Spokeswoman Lauire Bell responded, "We continue to believe that the Chihuahua character was created independently, and we intend to appeal the jury's verdict."

I'm still waiting to hear Dinky's thoughts now that the Psycho Chihuahua is running with the Big Dogs.

Printer friendly page Permalink Email to a friend Posted by J. Craig Williams on Friday, September 12, 2003 at 07:49. Comments Closed (0) |

My Vote for Remembering September 11, 2001

At least two websites, vote.com and CNN Student News, are asking the question whether September 11, 2001, should be declared a national holiday. With the tragic events that make up that day so fresh in our memory, it's an understandable question.

Vote.com argues "A holiday is needed to ensure that the attacks don't fade from memory. This would not only be a tribute to the thousands who died; it would honor the strength of America in its darkest hours." MIPTC agrees with the latter statement, but not the former.

Interestingly, Vote.com also argues that a similar "commeration" occurs based on December 7, 1941 - Pearl Harbor Day. True, and many tributes exist, but it's not a national holiday. We have many national tragedies, and some in very recent memory like the Challenger space shuttle accident. These tragedies stretch back to our very beginnings as a nation in 1774 - the Boston Tea Party massacre. Although I wish for world peace like many others, I am not foolish enough to think that another tragedy will not occur in the future.

Not all of these tragedies can be remembered with a separate holiday. Some would argue that we already have one holiday: Memorial Day.

Surely, as a nation, we all need to pause to remember September 11, and those who lost their lives as well as though who are fighting to preserve democracy and our way of life. We will do so again on Memorial Day.

But, as President Bush has urged us, we need to continue on with our daily lives and not let terrorists gain the upper hand. Although I couldn't review the results of the vote.com site, 56% on CNN vote "No" for a national holiday.

Now, I'll bow my head in prayer, shed my tears in memory of September 11. And then, I'll go back to work and do my duty to my country.

Printer friendly page Permalink Email to a friend Posted by J. Craig Williams on Thursday, September 11, 2003 at 08:36. Comments Closed (0) |

Into the Lap of Justice

It seems like those who want to escape justice may just find themselves sitting in the very lap of justice sooner than they thought. Ben Rogozensky, a Decatur, Georgia inmate found himself in a precarious position recently during an escape attempt.

Apparently, while in the courtroom and waiting for his hearing to begin, Rogozensky met with his attorney in an empty jury room with a deputy standing guard outside. During the meeting, Rogozensky excused himself to the adjacent restroom and attempted to escape through a ceiling crawl space.

Unfortunately for Rogozensky, he found out that the ceiling wasn't quite as reliable as he had hoped. In the midst of his escape route, he fell through the ceiling into State Court Judge J. Antonio Del Campo's chambers, and was captured by a technician working on the judge's computer.

That's one of the more unique ways to cut through a busy judge's long docket.

Printer friendly page Permalink Email to a friend Posted by Denise Gunkut on Wednesday, September 10, 2003 at 10:02. Comments Closed (1) |

It Was A Litte Early for Easter

The Gamma Phi Beta sorority sisters don't exactly have a green thumb, but they have great fashion sense. Since you can't really have a great party without decorations, the sisters went in search of palm fronds to add a tropical flavor to their festivities for last Saturday night.

Unfortunately, they may have gone a little too far. The sisters apparently cut palm fronds from several palm trees on private property extending up and down a path from the sorority house, and did a very poor job of it.

Here's the best part, though. The "mutilation" of the palm trees was discovered Suday morning - presumably after the party was just winding down. When contacted by the police, one of the sisters told them that "Now is not a good time to talk about the palm fronds." Apparently, some parents of sorority pledges were at the house.

Not to be put off, the police offered the sorority sister "other options" for a better time to talk with them about the palm fronds. Eight sisters thought that an immediate discussion was their best option, and admitted to cutting the palm fronds.

It's not like there isn't plenty to do at Cal State University, Chico. Just as one example, instead of cutting palm fronds, the sisters could have attended the "Burning Spear with Mystic Roots" presentation. Don't ask me, I have no idea. Given the choice, I might have considered the fronds, too.

Printer friendly page Permalink Email to a friend Posted by J. Craig Williams on Wednesday, September 10, 2003 at 08:05. Comments Closed (3) |

Blawg.com's Featured Site of the Week

This blog (or blawg) has been up and running just a little over a month. Bill Gratsch of Blawg.com, a source for law and legal-related weblogs, listed MIPTC as it's featured "Site of the Week" (scroll down - it's the sidebar on the left).

I'm grateful for the feature, and likewise note that Bill's site is a wonderful compendium of legal weblogs. It's worth an extended visit. Thanks for the tip of the hat, Bill!

Printer friendly page Permalink Email to a friend Posted by J. Craig Williams on Tuesday, September 09, 2003 at 09:46. Comments Closed (0) |

We Never Even had the Chance to Complain

To challenge an ordinance in California, you have to file suit within 120 days (Gov't Code section 66022). In this case, the ordinance setting the connection fee for sewer and water was passed in 1997.

In Merced County, California, a company sought to build a 32-bed care facility, and got hit with a $45K connection fee. Quite surprised, the company paid the fee under protest, and filed a complaint seeking refund of the fees, or part of the fees one day later. The water district denied the claim, and of course a suit followed.

In the case against the water district, the court held that the company's complaint was too late. Although the court omits from the factual recitation the date the complaint was filed, I assume it was filed more than 120 days after the ordinance was filed in 1997.

It's likely, too, that the company that built the residential care facility either formed or came into the district well after 1997. This result seems particularly harsh if those circumstances are true. The law cited by the court, however, addressed and rejected that argument. The underlying case determined that the wrong that was being challenged was the ordinance, not the later impostion of fees. Consequently, the challenge was too late.

Long and short: due diligence.

Printer friendly page Permalink Email to a friend Posted by J. Craig Williams on Tuesday, September 09, 2003 at 09:31. 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.