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:


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

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

Quote of the Day - Sharks have been swimming the oceans unchallenged for thousands of years; chances are, the species that roams corporate waters will prove just as hardy. - Eric Gelman
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 40

Zoning The Ocean Around Us

The federal government asserts a 200-mile territory of jurisdiction extending from the land.  That area is largely policed by the Coast Guard, using just 1,400 boats and 211 planes over 12,383 miles of coastline

Just in case you didn't pull your calculator out, that's 2,476,600 square miles.  To put it in perspective, those numbers equate to one Coast Guard unit (boat or plane) for every 1,537 square miles of ocean that have to be patrolled 24/7/365.  The Coast Guard has 40,150 personnel on active duty.

So, in a forty-hour workweek, each square mile of 1,537 could be patrolled once by one person, assuming no breaks and no one sitting behind a desk and assuming the boat or plane was piloted by one person.  Do the math.  It's not great odds, especially if you're lost at sea in one square foot of those square miles. 

Each state controls three miles out from its shoreline under the Submerged Lands Act.  They manage, develop, and lease that state's natural resources throughout the water and seabed. On the other hand, the federal government's 200-mile jurisdiction arises from the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act, but it can also assert control within the state's jurisdictional three-mile area.

So now that you understand the numbers and the whys and wherefores, why am I giving you all this background?  One state has followed the 2003 recommendation of the Pew Oceans Commission.

I knew you were curious. 

Massachusetts has passed landmark legislation that seeks to establish a comprehensive plan to balance the commercial and recreational uses of oceans and the protection of its environmental value.  The legislators are going to zone the ocean.  You know, like Residential, Commercial, Industrial and Open Space.

I'm not kidding.

Governor Patrick signed the Oceans Act (S 2699) into law at the end of May 2008.  The news just reached California (it must have traveled by a slow boat via China or got stuck in a postal zone). 

What a novel idea.  Zoning.  Not much different than the way we zone land, except it moves.  Don't tell the fish; they'll never get it.

So now proposals for fishing, recreation (think sunbathing on the beach), liquefied natural gas terminals, gas pipelines, oil drilling, sewage disposal, storm water runoff, desalination plants, garbage barges, nuclear power plants, sand mining on the seabed, scientific research, marinas, moorings, floating cities, telecommunications cables, wind farms and innumerable other uses of the ocean must be  balanced and considered, along with the need to preserve the oceans and the environment, and all by an apparently all-powerful ocean zoning commission.

Don't worry, though.  The Coast Guard will still rescue you within the three-mile zone.  You may need a permit, however.

Printer friendly page Permalink Email to a friend Posted by J. Craig Williams on Monday, June 16, 2008 at 21:58. Comments Closed (1) |

Lawyer 2 Lawyer Internet Radio Gets Educated on the Emergence of New Law Schools

 A sign of the times ~ more law schools? According to the National Law Journal, law schools are on the rise with as many as ten new ones, and a majority set to open on the East Coast. That's what me and my fellow blogger and co-host Robert Ambrogi discuss with experts, Dean Erwin Chemerinsky, founding dean of the Donald Bren School of Law at UC Irvine and Dean Thomas F. Guernsey, President and Dean, Albany Law School.

We explore traditional vs. new age law schools, what these new law schools have to offer, the ABA accreditation process and take a look at the reality after law school for students.  Click on the link below and give a listen.


Printer friendly page Permalink Email to a friend Posted by J. Craig Williams on Friday, June 13, 2008 at 09:15. Comments Closed (0) |

Lawyer2Lawyer Internet Radio Peers Into The Crystal Ball For New Law Schools

Lawyer 2 Lawyer (Coast to Coast) A sign of the times:  more law schools?  According to the National Law Journal, law schools are on the rise with as many as ten new ones, and a majority set to open on the East Coast.

That's what me and my fellow blogger and co-host Robert Ambrogi discuss with experts Dean Erwin Chemerinsky, founding dean of the Donald Bren School of Law at the University of Californai, Irvine and Dean Thomas F. Guernsey, President and Dean of the Albany Law School.

Please join us as we explore traditional vs. new age law schools, what these new law schools have to offer, the ABA accreditation process and take a look at the reality of what happens after law school for graduates.


Printer friendly page Permalink Email to a friend Posted by J. Craig Williams on Friday, June 13, 2008 at 01:00. Comments Closed (2) |

Driving While Talking: California's Newest Crime

Hang Up And Drive

Come July 1, 2008, Californians won't be able to be so talkative while driving a car or truck.  That's because a new law requires drivers to use a hands-free device for talking on their cell phones.  No more driving with one hand on the wheel, one hand on the cell phone and your mind somewhere else. 

Well, you'll still be able to have your mind somewhere else, just not with one hand on the cell phone.

Other drivers across the state are rejoicing, calling the new law an important step for safety.  "Hang up and drive," one Californian was heard to shout at another driver, while honking his horn. 

Essentially, if you make or receive phone calls other than emergencies, then you must have a hands-free way of talking.  Motorists who don't can be pulled over and cited, $20 for the first offense and $50 for subsequent violations.  If you're under 18 and driving, you can't use any type of wireless device to communicate, regardless whether you have a hands-free phone.

The CHP offers these tips for your safety. 

Printer friendly page Permalink Email to a friend Posted by J. Craig Williams on Wednesday, June 11, 2008 at 23:54. Comments Closed (2) |

The Supremes Call 'Em Like They See 'Em: Major League Baseball Strikes Out

Back in 2005, Major League Baseball pitched some fast heat at fantasy baseball, and specifically C.B.C. Distribution and Marketing, Inc., the company that set up rotisserie leagues and provided baseball stats to its customers.  MLB filed suit against CBC, claiming that the league owned the stats.  CBC countered and claimed the stats were in the public domain.

If you've never played fantasy baseball, it's baseball on paper - you create your own team and trade players, but you keep score using the real baseball player's actual stats.  In other words, if your player hits a home run in real life, then he hits a home run for your team, even though the actual player might be on the Chicago Cubs, but you have him on your team named Dave's Demons, along with other players from  other unrelated teams all over the real league. 

Yeah, I know:  geek city; but come on, a lot of people love it.

In the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals where the case landed, the court there had no trouble dispatching MLB's claims, and ruled for CBC.  Undaunted, Major League Baseball, joined by the union representing the players, filed a petition with the United States Supreme Court seeking to overturn the decision.

Just Monday, the Supremes summarily declined to hear the case, so the lower court's ruling stands, and fantasy baseball is safe to play once again.  MIPTC called this one when the case was first filed, and predicted this win for CBC. 

Printer friendly page Permalink Email to a friend Posted by J. Craig Williams on Tuesday, June 10, 2008 at 00:50. Comments Closed (0) |

Lawyer2Lawyer Internet Radio Looks At The Vioxx Reversals

Vioxx litigation is always upredictable. A $26 million jury verdict against Merck was overturned in Texas state court. Separately, an appeals court in New Jersey sharply reduced a verdict in another Vioxx case.

Please join me and my fellow blogger and co-host Bob Ambrogi as we welcome Attorney Tommy Fibich, partner in the firm of Fibich, Hampton & Leebron, LLP out of Houston, Texas and Brenda Sapino Jeffreys, reporter from Texas Lawyer, to explore the reversal of these verdicts. Join us to hear a plaintiff attorney and news reporter's perspective and see what the future holds for the verdicts of those affected by Vioxx.  Click on the link below.


Printer friendly page Permalink Email to a friend Posted by J. Craig Williams on Saturday, June 07, 2008 at 21:36. Comments Closed (0) |

With The California Supreme Court Poised To Rule On Non-compete Agreements, Trade Secret Agreements May Come Into Play More Frequently

Right now, California state courts won't enforce a non-compete agreement between an employer and employee absent equal bargaining power or payment for the agreement.  In federal court, such contracts can be upheld, however, if narrowly drawn.  Our state supreme court is considering clarifying the rule on non-compete agreements - something MIPTC will report on when the opinion is issued.

As an alternative to drafting non-compete agreements, many California lawyers use trade secret agreements, which are legal, and actually codified in our California's Uniform Trade Secrets Act, in the Civil Code, starting at section 3426.  Essentially, trade secrets are how a company does business, and may include things like customer, vendor and employee lists, as well as the way the business operates in the marketplace. 

With a trade secret agreement in place, a company can prevent a departing employee from using its hard-earned capital to the advantage of a new employer.  In the right circumstances, courts will issue injunctions preventing the departed employee and new employer from using the old employer's information.

Not quite as sweeping as a non-compete agreement, but just about as powerful.

Like with all lawsuits, the statute of limitations can bar trade secrets claims.  The statute is three years - if you don't bring your suit against the departed employee/new employer within three years of the date you learn your trade secret information is being used, the court will dismiss your claim.

The legislature reasoned that after three years, most of the trade secret information is stale anyway. 

But the question answered by this case, Cypress Semiconductor Corp. v. Sup.Ct., helps define when the statute starts to run, and gives some backhanded advice to companies trying to protect their trade secrets.

Let's get to a short setup of the case.  Silvaco Data Systems developed computer code called SmartSpice for its automation software.  A Silvaco employee left in 2000 and used the software in a similar program for his new employer Circuit Systems, Inc. called DynaSpice. Silvaco sued the employee and CSI and settled in 2003. 

In 2000 and after, CSI had been licensing its DynaSpice software to other companies, including Cypress Semiconductor Corporation.  Silvaco, however, waited to sue Cypress until after it settled with CSI. 

When CSI responded to Silvaco's complaint, it claimed that the statute of limitations barred the claim since Silvaco had failed to sue within three years of when it learned of the violation of its trade secrets.  The trial court sided with Silvaco, but the appellate court reversed in the opinion in the case citation link.

The lesson here?  If you're going to sue over a trade secret violation, then follow the trail and see if not only your departed employee and new employer are using your trade secrets.  You may have to sue others to protect your rights.  And sue in time.

Printer friendly page Permalink Email to a friend Posted by J. Craig Williams on Friday, June 06, 2008 at 01:17. Comments Closed (0) |

When I Was A Kid, We Walked Uphill To School Both Ways

Perhaps an obvious exaggeration, but I did walk uphill home.  It was more of a gradual hill, not too tough.  Except in the snow, when it was not only bitter cold, but also slippery because of the ice under the snow.  But I'm off track here. 

We all remember our youth as more difficult than kids have it these days.  If you're like me, then you've probably gotten one of those viral "do-you-remember-the-good-old-days" emails from one of your buddies.  Some of it's true, most of it is the little white lies we tell ourselves, like walking to school uphill.  It's fun to reminisce, but even more fun to tease your kids with how hard you had it.

But do kids nowadays have it easier than we do?

Let's look at corporal punishment - or in the parlance - spanking.  In my father's house, a belt and lowered pants were involved, resulting in a few red welts to drive home whatever point I needed to understand.  I don't think that qualified as spanking.  On the other hand, it was something less than a Pirates-of-the-Caribbean flogging.  My dad said it best:  "You're going to get a whipping, young man."

And it hurt.  And I was embarrassed.

So, what did Cameron County, Texas Justice of the Peace Gustavo Garza do wrong?  He's being sued by the parents of a 15-year-old girl whose stepfather was given the choice of paying a $500 fine or paddling the girl in open court for skipping school.  Garza even provided the paddle.

In the first place, the girl was in court as a truant - she skipped school, and the parents were there, too, because they apparently couldn't control the kid and make her stay in school. 

To be sure, a judge can't order parents to spank their child - the Texas State Commission on Judicial Conduct says so.  Garza, on the other hand, makes this distinction:  he offered spanking as an alternative, not an order.  The parents see it the other way around:  since they can't afford the $500, spanking was their only option. 

Garza said he offered the paddle in response to other parents' complaints that they had lost control of their children and were afraid of the consequences for spanking them at home.

In their lawsuit against the Justice of the Peace, the parents claim mental anguish and embarrassment and want an injunction stopping Garza from offering the punishment.  Garza is facing a hearing before another judge on the lawsuit, which likely won't get resolved anytime soon.

You be the judge:  should the Justice of the Peace be allowed to offer parents to spank their truant child in return for waiving the fine?


June 12 update:

Judge Garza has been ordered to stop offering the paddling as an alternative to fines, pending the outcome of his trial, which has not yet been set.  Since injunctions are only issued when there's a likelihood of success on the merits, this outcome of Judge Garza being banned from offering paddling is now almost a foregone conclusion. 

Printer friendly page Permalink Email to a friend Posted by J. Craig Williams on Thursday, June 05, 2008 at 00:23. 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.