May It Please The Court

RSS Feeds
MIPTC Author
About J. Craig Williams

May It Please The Court
by Leonard Rivkin
Barnes & Noble CLE Books
Latest Blogs
12/4/2008 - How to Get Sued

1/5/2005 - Your City Leaders Aren't Listening To You

12/29/2004 - Niagara Falls? Slowly I Turned, Step by Step, Inch by Inch.

12/25/2004 - Season's Greetings

This Month's Posts
Links of Interest [more]
Quote of the Day - Computers make it easier to do a lot of things, but most of the things they make it easier to do don't need to be done. - Andy Rooney
Claim Your Profile on Avvo
There are 2034 Journal Items on 255 page(s) and you are on page number 210

New Sources for Legal News

This blawg features legal news with some occasionally snappy commentary on that news. But, if you're looking for a site that has a steady stream of legal news, check this one out:

It's a bevy of legal news, with some weblawgs as well, thrown in for good measure. You can bet I'll be looking at it to get ideas for this blawg.

Printer friendly page Posted by J. Craig Williams on Monday, July 19, 2004 at 17:21 Comments (0) |

What Goes Down Must Come Up

And you thought the National Geographic was all pretty pictures and naked tribespeople (non-sexist remark) in Africa.

It's also known for science news. Like this little tidbit.

I know, you've been sitting at home wondering what happened to all of the carbon dioxide that we've been releasing into the air since the industrial revolution started several hundred years ago. Obviously, you've thought, it can't all have ended up in the atmosphere.

And you'd be right. Half of it has ended up in the ocean, along with other chemicals. Of course. After all, the oceans take up two-thirds of earth. Where else would it end up? Certainly not in Saturn's rings - they found oxygen there. Certainly not.

What does all of this research portend? Plankton will die, and corals will die. So what, you say?

They're at the bottom of the food chain. Contrary to the laws of laws of physics, what goes down, must come up.

Solutions? I don't have any.

Printer friendly page Posted by J. Craig Williams on Sunday, July 18, 2004 at 09:51 Comments (0) |

"I want a raise." "You're fired."

You've at least thought it, if not said it outright to your boss. No, it's not take this job and shove it. It's "I want a raise." or "you're not paying me enough."

Presumably, that's what Jorja Fox and George Eads did when they went to the producers of CSI. I know, I don't normally write entertainment news, but I'm a big CSI fan, and the story is over contract disputes.

According to news reports, they've been fired for asking for more money.

"How could that be?" you ask. After all, you've probably done the same thing. Well, it's Hollywood. Need I say more?

Technically, it likely works something like this. They're in their fifth year of a seven-year contract. They ask for more pay. It's likely those demands were each a breach of contract. Kind of like a counteroffer to an existing contract, which the employer had no obligation to accept. But more likely, there was a provision in the contracts that prevented increased demands. The "greed provision," as more commonly known.

In other words, take your demand and shove it.

Printer friendly page Posted by J. Craig Williams on Saturday, July 17, 2004 at 12:09 Comments (0) |

Cell Phone Boycott? Wouldn't Work Here.

Not happy with cell phone coverage? Tired of high cell phone bills?

Try boycotting. They're doing it in Lebanon, and expect to have some success - costing the government (who runs the service there) $2.8 million in lost revenues.

I think if we tried it here, people would think it was like the gas boycott hoax. Or was it real and people just said it was a hoax?

I'm going to go home and watch The Matrix, and call my friends.

On my cell phone.

Printer friendly page Posted by J. Craig Williams on Friday, July 16, 2004 at 13:34 Comments (0) |

Oil Industry, Coastal Commission Battle Over Regs

The Western States Petroleum Association sued the California Coastal Commission over the CCC's attempts to enforce its pollution rules on drilling platforms in federal waters.

That lawsuit just sounds wrong. But, the oil industry may have a good argument. The South Coast Air Quality Management District tried to regulate air quality with its fleet rules, but the Supreme Court shut down that argument (see the last link).

There are big stakes in this dispute - there are about about 4,000 oil and gas platforms in the Gulf of Mexico that other states could try to regulate if California is successful. There are only only about 22 rigs in federal waters here in California. Here's a primer on oil rig pollution.

The USEPA regulates oil platforms in federal waters, and the oil industry claims the Coastal Commission is engaged in a turf war. The Commission claims the oil rigs are dodging legitimate pollution regulations.

My money's on the oil industry on this one.

Printer friendly page Posted by J. Craig Williams on Thursday, July 15, 2004 at 17:47 Comments (0) |

Is Your Attorney Really an Attorney?

An "attorney" in the Bronx Public Defender's Office "practiced" for four years, handling thousands of cases.

The quotes are there for a reason. Turns out the "attorney," Diane Shamis, is not an actual attorney. The bar association found out when one of her clients filed a complaint against her, and she didn't show up on the list of attorneys.

That was their first clue. Apparently, the Bronx Public Defender's Office, who is not returning phone calls asking for comments, failed to check her credentials when they hired her. When the PD found out, she was fired on the spot.

Now, they're calling the thousands of clients to let them know about the mixup. It is unclear whether the cases will be relitigated or overturned.

Shamis faces up to a year in jail. Perhaps, though, it's not that much of a mixup. Her attorney, Marvin Raskin, said she graduated from law school and passed the bar, but did not fill out the proper paperwork to get her credentials. "At this point in time, we are attempting to resolve the issues of admission to the bar as expeditiously as possible given the circumstances of this unfortunate situation," Raskin said.

You can check your attorney's credentials here for California attorneys.

Printer friendly page Posted by J. Craig Williams on Wednesday, July 14, 2004 at 17:12 Comments (0) |

My Learned Friends, Want to be A 1L?

We're back to First Year Law School, and torts class. Specifically, the learned intermediary rule.

The rule deals with the sufficiency of warnings. In this instance, it deals with side effects and injuries that result from taking prescription drugs. Drug manufacturers warn doctors, and doctors are in turn obligated to warn consumers. Or so you would think.

One consumer, Robert Larkin, took drugs manufactured by Pfizer. He contracted toxic epidermal necrolysis and Stevens-Johnson syndrome. He sued Pfizer.

Pfizer had warned Larkin's doctor of the possibility of both of these side effects. The company defended the case on the basis of the learned intermediary rule, and claimed that it wasn't their responsibility to warn Larkin, it was the doctor's.

Larkin lost. The Kentucky Supreme Court held for Pfizer, and endorsed the Rule (Subscription needed to view). By a 4-3 vote.

It was a close one, but still a win for the manufacturer. Now, I assume, Larkin will sue the doctor, who likely doesn't have as deep a pocket as Pfizer.

Printer friendly page Posted by J. Craig Williams on Tuesday, July 13, 2004 at 10:58 Comments (0) |

Keyboard Wars - To Split or Not To Split

I have one, and you may too. Microsoft's split keyboard, that is. You may not know, but apparently, Microsoft doesn't own the patent for that keyboard.

Typeright Keyboard Co., Inc. of Carlsbad, California sued Microsoft in 1998 over the alleged violation of its patent. Microsoft won the first round. Typeright appealed, and reversed Microsoft's win. Chalk one up for the little guy. They used some pretty cool graphics to help win their case.

Microsoft, on the other hand, said that there were German designs for a split keyboard that predated Typeright's patent by about 10 years.

The case will now go back to a jury in San Diego to decide. We'll keep watching.

Printer friendly page Posted by J. Craig Williams on Monday, July 12, 2004 at 11:32 Comments (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 >>