Law Blog Round-up
June 16, 2008
Hello! Here are a few law links to ease you into the week:
We’re about to see a tidal wave of foreclosures in Maryland, says bankruptcy lawyer Brett Weiss.
The Janice M. v. Margaret K. same-sex visitation majority opinion doesn’t consider the “real world experience of children and alternative families,” divorce lawyer Jill Breslau writes.
There’s still time to confirm Rod Rosenstein, the Examiner says.
Yes, summer associates, it is OK to inquire about your firm’s financial health and plans for the future, says a big-firm recruiting director. And if you don’t have enough work, go to all the practice group meetings you can, she says.
Ever tried a rape case without being able to use the word “rape”? The National Law Journal has a trend piece about judges banning prosecutors from using “loaded” words. Hat tip: ABA Journal.
From The Volokh Conspiracy comes this link to a Dahlia Lithwick piece about what the last term shows about the changing dynamic on the Supreme Court.
CARYN TAMBER, Legal Affairs Writer
Sphere: Related ContentAnniversary for Loving v. Virginia
June 12, 2008
Today marks the 40th 41st anniversary of the legalization of interracial marriage, which followed a landmark decision in the case Loving v. Virginia. The June 12, 1967 Supreme Court decision struck down anti-miscegenation laws in more than a dozen states.
At the heart of the case were Richard and Mildred Loving, an interracial couple from rural Virginia, who were married in 1958 in Washington, D.C. When the Lovings returned home to Caroline County, Virginia, they were arrested and banished from the state for violating Virginia’s Racial Integrity Act. They sued after relocating to D.C, hoping to return to Virginia.
Since the Loving decision, mixed marriages have become more common but still rare, at only 7 percent of total marriages in the nation.
NPR took a look back at the historic case in 2007.
JACKIE SAUTER, Web Editor
Sphere: Related ContentThis week in Maryland Lawyer
June 9, 2008
- Mandatory retirement ages for lawyers have lost favor with the ABA and many law firms, but as Danny Jacobs writes, performance-based retirement can bring its own set of problems. In a related story, the lawyer for a retired founder says his suit against his former partners is “just business,” but it feels personal to one of the men he mentored.
- Kathy Kelly Howard, lobbyist for property-owners’ rights, will be sworn in this week as president of the 23,000-member Maryland State Bar Association. Find out how she plans to use her year.
- The Court of Appeals heard argument Friday in two cases we’ve been following: A disciplinary matter against Lemon Law firm Kimmel & Silverman, and a zoning dispute between Loyola College in Maryland and North Baltimore County residents over the college’s plans for a retreat center in Parkton.
- A Frederick lawyer wins a round in his defamation suit over a blog post; and, in Verdicts & Settlements, a woman is ordered to repay $190,000 to her stepmother after her father dies.
- Leadership in Law honoree Mark Thomas, now a judge, talks about how being on the bench has literally given him a new perspective; Rommel Loria talks about the “low bono” green-card case he took for a Peruvian man after taking a class at Catholic Charities.
- The Editorial Advisory Board calls for more changes to Maryland’s foreclosure process; Wilhelm Joseph calls for more money for Legal Aid; and the woman at the center of a controversial child support ruling tells her side of the story in a letter to the editor.
Also, find legal briefs, “movers,” case digests, and summaries of the U.S. Supreme Court, the 4th Circuit and the Office of Administrative Hearings opinions here.
As always, you can comment on any of these stories by responding to this blog. Or, if you’re in Ocean City for the MSBA’s annual meeting, stop by our booth and leave me a message!
BARBARA GRZINCIC, Managing Editor, Law
Sphere: Related ContentAn unlikely gaming advocate
June 6, 2008
It might be a bit dry (err… educational) in comparison to Guitar Hero, but a new video game about the court system has Justice Sandra Day O’Connor’s backing.
O’Connor spoke this week at Games for Change, a conference in New York, where she unveiled “Our Courts” - a video game project she helped to develop. It’s aimed at teaching children about the nation’s judicial system. Think of it as a virtual civics program, she said.
“In recent years I’ve become increasingly concerned about vitriolic attacks by some members of Congress, some members of state legislatures and various private interest groups … on judges,” O’Connor said, according to the Reuters report. “We hear a great deal about judges who are activists — godless, secular, humanists trying to impose their will on the rest of us. Now I always thought an activist judge was one who got up in the morning and went to work.”
Our sister blog, DC Dicta, wondered if O’Connor’s participation at the conference means she’s a closet video game fan - perhaps spending her free time playing Zelda or Grand Theft Auto? Um, no.
“I don’t play videogames,” she said. “Sorry.”
According to Wired magazine, O’Connor also told the crowd, “If someone told me when I retired from court that I’d be talking at a conference about digital gaming, I’d think they’d had one drink too many.”
JACKIE SAUTER, Web Editor
Sphere: Related ContentThree down, 26 to go for Supreme Court
June 2, 2008
As the Supreme Court entered the final month of its term today, it had 29 decisions outstanding. The justices issued three this morning, leaving 26 to go — or about one a day, most weekends included, for the rest of the month. (Hat tip to our sister blog, DC Dicta.)
The money-laundering cases, Cuellar v. U.S. (PDF) and U.S. v. Santos (PDF), both make it tougher to prosecute such cases. In the paralegal fees (PDF) case, Richlin Security Service v. Chertoff, the court held that a prevailing party under the Equal Access to Justice Act can recover paralegal fees at prevailing market rates, even if that exceeds the actual cost of such services to the party’s attorney.
In other news, fantasy baseball aficionados can rest easy: the justices denied cert in the case of Major League Baseball Advanced Media v. C.B.C. Distribution and Marketing Inc., 07-1099. The high court declined to second-guess the 8th Circuit, which found C.B.C. had a First Amendment right to use real players’ names and information.
BARBARA GRZINCIC, Managing Editor/Law
Sphere: Related ContentIt’s no secret: ‘Tarnished’ Victoria wins trademark suit
May 23, 2008
The name was changed eight years ago, and even a Supreme Court victory in 2003 didn’t bring it back. Now, a federal judge has ordered “Victor’s Little Secret” to remain under wraps forever.
To recap: Victor’s Little Secret was an adult novelty and lingerie store operated by Cathy and Victor Moseley in Elizabethtown, Ky., not far from Louisville. Mega-retailer Victoria’s Secret learned of the store and, in true Victorian fashion, was not amused. It went to court and obtained an order blocking the Moseleys from operating under Victor’s name.
The Moseleys changed the name to Cathy’s Little Secret. But they also fought all the way to Supreme Court, which ruled in their favor and remanded the case to the 6th Circuit, with instructions to send it back to the federal court in Louisville for a new ruling.
A funny thing happened on the way to the remand, though. For reasons that aren’t specified, the 6th Circuit sat on the case for awhile. For FOUR YEARS, in fact — until July 2007.
Meanwhile, due in large part to the Supreme Court’s 2003 decision, Congress rewrote the law in a way more to Victoria Secret’s liking. The Trademark Dilution Revision Act took effect in 2006.
Thus, by the time the 6th Circuit sent the case back to the trial court, the rules had changed. While the Moseleys cried foul, U.S. District Judge Charles Simpson [PDF] applied the new standard and ruled in favor of Victoria’s Secret.
“The use of the remarkably similar ‘Victor’s Secret’ or ‘Victor’s Little Secret’ in connection with the sale of intimate lingerie along with sex toys and adult videos tarnishes the reputation of the Victoria’s Secret mark,” Simpson wrote.
No word yet on whether the Moseleys will continue their fight.
BARBARA GRZINCIC, Managing Editor/Law
Powerless patent judges?
April 30, 2008
Was the appointment of some patent appeals judges unconstitutional?
That is the question raised in a Supreme Court petition (PDF) filed this month by Translogic Technology, a company whose patent was rejected by a three-judge panel of the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences. (Translogic Technology v. Dudas, No. 07-1303; hat tip to the Law.com/the National Law Journal and patentlyo.com).
The BPAI’s decision was affirmed (PDF) by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, which then set aside an $86.5 million infringement verdict for Translogic.
Based on the work (PDF) of intellectual property scholar John Duffy of George Washington Law School, Translogic is arguing that one of the judges on the BPAI panel was appointed in derogation of the U.S. Constitution.
Under reforms made in 1999, the director of the Patent and Trademark Office can appoint BPAI judges. Duffy and Translogic claim that the Constitution’s Appointments Clause reserves that power to the president, courts, or the secretary of the Commerce Department — not the director of the PTO.
According to the NLJ article, the problem could affect nearly two-thirds of the BPAI judges, about 40 of whom have been appointed by the director. What do you think? Were these appointments unconstitutional? And if they were, what is the remedy?
CHRISTINA DORAN, Assistant Legal Editor
Sphere: Related ContentLaugh tracking at Scotus
April 29, 2008
Oral arguments are over, the transcripts have been scoured and our sister blog, DC Dicta, has figuratively crowned the Supreme Court’s Funniest Justice of the October 2007 Term:
No drumroll needed here: As predicted, the winner by a long, long shot is the ever-amusing Justice Antonin Scalia.
Scalia had the court reporters hitting their (Laughter) keys 74 times this term — 18 in the final two weeks of argument alone, DC Dicta notes. And contrary to what you might have seen on TV, Justice Clarence Thomas managed to go for a second straight year without making a single comment during oral arguments.
The tally:
Justice Antonin Scalia: 74
Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr.: 23
Justice Stephen Breyer: 21
Justice David Souter: 17
Justice Anthony Kennedy: 9
Justice John Paul Stevens: 7
Justice Samuel Alito, Jr.: 4
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg: 4
Justice Clarence Thomas: 0
BARBARA GRZINCIC, Managing Editor, Law
Sphere: Related ContentThe justices we haven’t seen
April 24, 2008
It’s great that Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia will be talking at the Lyric today as part of UB Law’s spring speaker series, but it does make me wonder…
Over the three years I have worked at The Daily Record, I have been fortunate enough to see three justices in an outside-One-First-Street capacity. In 2005, I got to cover a speech Sandra Day O’Connor gave to the Women’s Bar Association. In 2006, I wrote about John G. Roberts speaking to a conference of Maryland judges. Last year, I went to a book party that Sinclair Broadcasting head David Smith hosted for Clarence Thomas. Scalia will make four.
It was cool to cover O’Connor and Roberts and to meet Thomas, and I’m sure the sharp-tongued Scalia won’t disappoint, but I wonder why all the Supreme Court justices who have come to our fair state recently have been members of the court’s conservative wing. (Well, O’Connor counts as half a conservative. That’s the half that sided with Bush in Bush v. Gore, not the half that upheld Roe v. Wade in Planned Parenthood v. Casey.)
You would think that a fairly liberal state like Maryland, with two pretty liberal law schools and a somewhat-to-the-left-of-center judiciary, would play host to a Ruth Bader Ginsburg or a Stephen Breyer once in a while. For variety’s sake, it would be interesting to hear what one of the high court’s liberals has to say.
CARYN TAMBER, Legal Affairs Writer
Sphere: Related ContentJustice comes to town
April 24, 2008
Hey, Justice Antonin Scalia! You’ve just finished hearing arguments for the term on the Supreme Court! What are you going to do next?
“I’m going to Baltimore!”
The University of Baltimore School of Law, to be precise. Scalia, slated to appear on 60 Minutes on Sunday and co-author of a book that comes out on Monday, is in town today for a session with UB Law students, a luncheon, a meet-and-greet with various faculty members and a public session across the street from the school at the Lyric Opera House.
Possibly hoping to avoid a repeat of 2004’s “Hattiesburg Incident,” in which federal marshals appropriated and destroyed two reporters’ tapes at a high school appearance (for which Scalia later apologized), UB Law’s spokesman was quite clear in issuing an invitation to the Lyric event. Reporters may bring a notebook, pencil and tape-recording device “for reporting purposes only — not for broadcast.”
Scalia’s book, co-authored with Bryan Garner of LawProse Inc., is called “Making Your Case: The art of persuading judges.” It stems from interviews Garner did with eight of the nine justices between 2006 and 2007, which Garner has put up on his Web site.
BARBARA GRZINCIC, Managing Editor/Law
Sphere: Related Content-
Business
Business posts- UnderArmour to supply apparel for SEC
- The next Great Depression: How ya like them apples?
- It’s all for the kids
- Will CEG shareholders support EDF’s bid?
- Battle of the Beltway
- Any price is too high if you’re broke
- Maryland: 10th-fastest internet speeds in nation
- Where the deals are
- Phelps named Sportsman of the Year
- Can SUV sales make a comeback?
Law
Law posts- Tis’ the season for layoffs
- A case of mistaken identity
- Beware of the blogging juror
- Inmate sought to intervene in Wells Fargo suit
- What’s behind that law firm’s headcount?
- Law blog round-up
- This week in Maryland Lawyer
- A history of football in Baltimore, courtesy of a lawsuit
- Baltimore crime stuck at 12th-worst in U.S.
- First a mongrel Mercedes, now a botched Bentley
Recent Posts
- Tis’ the season for layoffs
- UnderArmour to supply apparel for SEC
- The next Great Depression: How ya like them apples?
- A case of mistaken identity
- It’s all for the kids
Recent Comments
- Jacki Pearlman: Unfortunately, the game will not live up to it’s hype. I am a diehard Redskins fan after being...
- Isolde: Anybody remember GreedyAssociates.com? That’s basically a forum for ads and political weirdos now. Why?...
- Liz Farmer: Thanks for chiming in guys. Ed, you are exactly right. I did not include this in my original post but...
- Rick Rigini: Did you ever read the children’s book Norman the Doorman?
- Ed Waters Jr.: In many articles, it seems the writers tend to overlook the fact that some people need an SUV (or...
On Commenting
We ask that our readers follow a few guidelines, noted below.Please do not post any personal attacks, profanity, spam or other advertisements — they will be removed. Also, please post using only one name or pseudonym, as this consistency helps establish a sense of community. We will delete posts if they are signed with different names but originate from the same IP or email address. And if you’re going to comment using a proper name, please make it your own. Deliberate misrepresentations will be removed.