Wednesday, April 25, 2007

Desmond Meeting - 4th Department practice tips

In another example of the success of the new meeting format, Judge Peradotto and her team led a roundtable discussion on practice tips. Although impossible to distill all the wisdom in a brief post, ABL notes a few pointers:

* save the drama/sympathy for juries
* official cites only in briefs (no parallel cites)
* if at oral argument the panel raises an issue/case that you have not considered, do not wing it, ask for permission to raise in a post-argument submission

ABL will add more in the near future

Sunday, April 22, 2007

BU ranked #20 by US News

As methodologically unsound as they are, you just can't help but look.

Saturday, April 14, 2007

Daddy almost needed a new pair of shoes

ABL drove to an out-of-town deposition the other day. ABL likes to wear sneakers while driving. While loading the Jeep with litigation bags and his shoes, I placed my shoes on the roof. When I got to the toll booth, I realized that I had not put my shoes in the car. The following then occurred:

ABL: This is probably a bizarre question, but are there a pair of shoes on my roof?

Toll Attendant: Why yes there are?

ABL: Could you please hand them to me?

Toll Attendant: you are lucky that you did not lose them.

The deposition went well too.

Friday, April 06, 2007

USSC limits state punitive damage awards

The U.S. Supreme Court recently held that "a large state-court punitive damages award" that is based in part on the desire to punish the defendant for harm to non-parties (i.e., people not before the court), is an unconstitutional taking under the Due Process Clause. Click on link above or see Philip Morris USA v. Williams, 2007 WL 505781 (2007). This decision builds upon the Court's 2003 decision in State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Cambell, 538 U.S. 408 (2003).

Williams noted several rationales for its decision. First, a defendant threatened with punishment for harm to non-parties is unable to defend itself by pointing out factors such as the non-parties' culpability, knowledge, and other relevant factors. Second, a jury would be likely to make a standardless punitive damages determination because it would have to speculate on issues such as how many victims exist, how seriously were they injured, and what the circumstances of injury were. This speculation would violate fundamental due process concerns -- risk of arbitrariness, uncertainty, and lack of notice. Williams noted that BMW left open the question of "harm to others" as a basis for a punitive damages award -- a door that was closed in Williams.

Tuesday, April 03, 2007

ABL's publications

Reaping the Rewards: Enforcing U.S. Judgments in England and Wales and Enforcing Foreign Money Judgments in New York, 12 NYLitigator 16 (Winter 2007)

Recent e-SOP Developments, 9 Internet L. J. 3 (2006 Aspen)

SWANCC: full of sound and fury, Signifying nothing . . . much?, 37 J. Marshall L. Rev. 1017 (2004)

You’ve Got Mail: The Modern Trend Towards Universal Electronic Service of Process, 51 BUFF. L. REV. 337 (2003)

Getting to Peace: Avoiding Roadblocks on the Path to Peace in Northern Ireland, 14 TEMPLE INT’L & COMP. L.J. 1 (2000)

An Analysis of Genetic Discrimination Legislation Proposed by the 105th Congress, 24 AM. J. L. & MED. 443 (1998)

The Complimentary Relationship Between the Duties of Zealous Advocacy and Candor Toward the Tribunal, in Recent Developments in Massachusetts & Federal Law 367 (MCLE 1998)

Monday, April 02, 2007

2d CIrcuit addresses Class Action Fairness Act