LawTalkers - It was the wrong thread

LawTalkers (http://www.lawtalkers.com/forums/index.php)

- The Big Board (http://www.lawtalkers.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=13)

- - It was the wrong thread (http://www.lawtalkers.com/forums/showthread.php?t=573)

Re: It was the wrong thread

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski (Post 378881)

it the size of cases. our stuff you are maybe on two files, your stuff many more so there is a lot more motion/argument/deps to go around.

the best instincts from an IP guy I"ve seen was this guy who switched from insurance defense to IP after 4 years. he always could point to potential land mines and what not to do to piss Judges off. Although we always just believed him. He might have been full of shit.

ID guys try a lot of shit, so he probably knew what he was talking about. Those guys will fuck you up in court if you're not paying attention.

Re: It was the wrong thread

Quote:

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield (Post 378871)

I understand. All I was saying is, if you can get yourself assigned to a case where you'll get to do one, do it. It's a fun experience.

When I worked for the Nevada Supreme Court, we (staff and clerks) would often watch argument from the viewing room (window down and sound piped in) so we could kibbitz. And make fun of bad toupees.

Re: It was the wrong thread

Quote:

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield (Post 378882)

ID guys try a lot of shit, so he probably knew what he was talking about. Those guys will fuck you up in court if you're not paying attention.

true story: my dad drunk driving hits a Canadian guy in Michigan. He is sued in Ontario, we have no fault. Thee is a dep notice mailed to him from "his lawyer" in Ontario. My dad had not been in Canada for 15 years. I say to skilled ID guy, "I'm writing the Canadian firm a letter telling him my father will never go to Canada since he'll waive the clear personal Jurisdiction defense he has." "Never refuse to do what your insurance company tells you to do. that can give them a way out of coverage. write a letter telling the firm you assume they have considered the impact of the waiver of jurisdiction, and that they still want daddy to show."

smart mother.

Re: It was the wrong thread

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.) (Post 378880)

even though as we all know 90% of big firm motions are bullshit, designed more for tactical advantage and increasing the opposition's costs. .

Not once was that the case on a motion I have been involved in. Although I have worked as co-counsel with K&E enough to know why they have their rep.

Had the odd experience once of litigating a case against a good friend from law school. Post-hac I was surprised how much credibility we gained by not challenging class cert, even though we didn't primarily because we thought we wouldn't win.

To this day I don't know whether the partners know that I basically settled the case over beers at Buffalo Billiards.

Re: It was the wrong thread

Quote:

Originally Posted by Adder (Post 378893)

It's pretty common practice to file all sorts of specious shit in Philly. It's a "people gotta eat" thing, I think. The regionals realize that good whales who'll pay their bills in the area are few and far in between, so when they get one, if they can, they break out all the stops and run the meter. That and the disputes in the town are always nasty. There's a whole subculture of hyper-aggressive business litigation shops that seem to know nothing but scorched earth technique.

Re: It was the wrong thread

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski (Post 378888)

I had an ID beat me like a gong in court a couple years ago. It was a shit case with no chance of success, but the dude schooled us. Nice guy, too. No hardass shit or ego. He just relentlessly drilled my client into the ground. Fucking embarrassing. I thought the jury was going to attack me she lied so goddamn much.

Re: It was the wrong thread

According to page 1 of yesterday's Wall Street Journal:

Quote:

For years, the law firm Heller Ehrman LLP used a goofy coat of arms inside its offices: a laurel wreath, the scales of justice and a Latin quotation, elvem ipsum etiam vivere. Rough translation: Elvis lives.

Can this possibly be true? I've been in Heller offices but don't remember seeing this. Surely there's a copy on the internet somewhere....

Re: It was the wrong thread

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop (Post 379137)

According to page 1 of yesterday's Wall Street Journal:

Can this possibly be true? I've been in Heller offices but don't remember seeing this. Surely there's a copy on the internet somewhere....

I know someone who once worked there, but that person is blinde and was unable to confirm or deny the coat of arms thing.

Re: It was the wrong thread

This ruling bugs the shit out of me

Quote:

Ars first covered the case of Avery Doninger—at the time a recent graduate of Lewis S. Mills High School—this past summer. Following a dust-up with school administrators about the possible cancellation of a repeatedly-postponed student concert, Doninger fumed on her Live Journal about the "douchebags in central office" and urged her fellow students to call or e-mail said douchebags in order to express their displeasure. (The post asserted that the concert had, in fact, been canceled, though school officials say Doninger was wrong about this.) When the school retaliated by barring Doninger from running for reelection to her seat on the student council, Doninger sought to force a rerun, claiming violation of her First Amendment rights. The Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit declined to do so, however, noting that schools enjoy greater discretion in limiting participation in extracurricular activities than in (say) inflicting punishments like expulsion, and ruling that the post was subject to school authority because it had "a reasonably foreseeable risk [of coming] to the attention of school authorities."

Now, most of a lawsuit in which Doninger sought to recover damages from school officials has been thrown out by a lower court, which held that administrators enjoy a qualified immunity from suit for official conduct that does not clearly violate a well-established right. Citing the blurry line between "on-campus" and "off-campus" speech in the Internet era, the court acknowledged that current law gives no clear answers to the question of where students' rights to free online speech end and the authority of schools to enforce discipline begins.

Forty years ago, the Supreme Court's seminal ruling in Tinker v. Des Moines rejected the idea that students "shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate," affirming the right of students to protest the Vietnam War by wearing black armbands to school. But the court also made clear that the First Amendment did not prevent schools from punishing speech that "materially disrupts classwork or involves substantial disorder or invasion of the rights of others," while a later ruling made a similar exception in the case of vulgar or offensive language.

Schools' authority to restrict student speech has since been extended to cover school sponsored events that take place away from campus. But courts are still struggling to figure out how to deal with private student speech that, via the magic of the Internets, easily makes its way into the classroom. Referring to a 30-year-old case in which the Second Circuit affirmed the right of students to publish an offensive off-campus newspaper, the court wrote:

Quote:

[W]e are not living in the same world that existed in 1979. The students in Thomas were writing articles for an obscene publication on a typewriter and handing out copies after school. Today, students are connected to each other through email, instant messaging, blogs, social networking sites, and text messages. An email can be sent to dozens or hundreds of other students by hitting "send." A blog entry posted on a site such as livejournal.com can be instantaneously viewed by students, teachers, and administrators alike. Off-campus speech can become on-campus speech with the click of a mouse.

This month's ruling did not do much to clarify those boundaries—it simply noted that officials could not reasonably be held liable for their decisions given the confused state of the law, whether or not future courts might hold such decisions to conflict with the First Amendment. But the line of reasoning endorsed by both the district and appellate courts would, in effect, erase that boundary with respect to online speech about a school, whether or not it occurs in a school.

Re: It was the wrong thread

Quote:

Originally Posted by Replaced_Texan (Post 379662)

This ruling bugs the shit out of me

Another reason I cannot suppourt public schools. I am thinking of withholding my local real estate taxes to protest......thoughts?

Re: It was the wrong thread

Quote:

Originally Posted by Replaced_Texan (Post 379662)

This ruling bugs the shit out of me

As to punishment, absurd. Not so as to damages though.

Re: It was the wrong thread

Quote:

Originally Posted by Adder (Post 379683)

As to punishment, absurd. Not so as to damages though.

2. People too quickly forget that qualified immunity doesn't mean that the conduct was okay; just that it's very hard to find public servants willing to come to work when their personal livelihoods are put at risk by the push-pull policymaking of constitutional law. An individual should only be denied qualified immunity when their behavior was clearly an abuse of authority.

Best example of this is Morse v. Frederick, where the 9th Circuit found a right was so "clearly established" that a high school principal should know the law better than the USDC (which granted a Rule 56 motion) did.

Secret Agent Man 2

Welcome Newber!!!!

We expect big things from you. Good on ya, mate!~

Cheers,

P

Law school hypos come to life, Pat XIV

Re: Secret Agent Man 2

Quote:

Originally Posted by Penske_Account (Post 380534)

Welcome Newber!!!!

We expect big things from you. Good on ya, mate!~

Cheers,

P

If we chant "Kum Bah Yah" really loud, do you think we can we get an Adder 2?