Duane Morris home
 

Judge or Jury: Who Determines Facts Underlying Monetary Penalties


Yesterday the United States Supreme Court heard oral argument in Southern Union Company v. United States.  After a jury trial, Southern Union was convicted of a regulatory, environmental offense and hit with $18 million in monetary penalties.  The penalty for the offense included a $50,000 fine for each day the conduct occurred.  But the jury did not render a decision about how many days the conduct occurred (nor was it asked to do so).  Instead the judge made the determination.  The issue was whether the judge or the jury was required to determine how many days the offense conduct occurred. 

 

[Read More]
 
 
 
 

Circuit Conflict Regarding Standard of Review for Rule 404(b) Evidence


The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit recently considered the standard of review for evidence admitted under Rule 404(b) of the Federal Rules of Evidence.  Although evidentiary rulings are generally reviewed for abuse of discretion, the Sixth Circuit held that a three-tiered standard of review was necessary when reviewing evidence admitted under 404(b).  The decision resulted in the reversal of a criminal jury verdict.  The Government is seeking en banc review--noting that there is a circuit split and an intra-circuit split.[Read More]
 
 
 
 

Stay on the same track or change trains? Recent Case reminds us that SCOTUS doesn’t often reverse direction, but it can.


In reaffirming a Supreme Court "field preemption" decision dating to 1926, some Justices debate whether the issue might have been decided differently under modern legal analysis, reminding appellants and lawyers that the highest court can change direction, even if it does so only rarely.[Read More]
 
 
 
 

Governor's Historic Appointments to the State Supreme Court Remind Us of the Historic Path that Led Here


Governor Christie's appointment of an openly gay African-American and a Korean-American are “historic” -- but so was the decision that led to these two open seats on the New Jersey Supreme Court, which produced three separate opinions, including one dubitante, concerning only the composition of the Court and having nothing to do with the case then before the Court.  Henry v. Dept. of Human Services, 204 N.J. 320, 9 A.3d 882 (2010) was an historic oddity that was built along the way.  

[Read More]
 
 
 
 

Can You Ever Have Too Many Friends (of the Court)?


The New York Times recently published an article entitled Friend-of-Court Filings Mushroom, and a Law Professor Takes Issue. The article recounts law professor Richard H. Fallon Jr.’s refusal to sign on to an amicus curiae—or “friend of the court”—brief circulated by fellow law professors because he found it not scholarly.  More interesting to the average practitioner than Professor Fallon’s reasons for not signing on when asked by his colleagues are the simple numbers he relates. . . .

[Read More]

If You’ve Ever Encountered A Difficult Court Clerk, Here’s Your Case


If you have ever run into a court clerk who seems set on making things difficult, take comfort in a December 14, 2011 decision issued by the California Court of Appeal for the Sixth District, Voit v. Superior Court of Santa Clara County, __Cal.App.4th__(December 14, 2011).[Read More]
 
 
 
 

California Court of Appeal Limits Class Action Lawsuit Based on Temperature of Motor Fuel against Chevron to Claims Under California’s Unfair Competition Law and Consumer Legal Remedies Act


The elementary fact that motor fuel—and liquids in general—expand in volume as they are heated stands at the heart of a likewise heated class action lawsuit against Chevron U.S.A., Inc.  While many people would recognize, or at least not balk at the fact that motor fuel expands and provides less energy content in warmer temperatures, I’m willing to bet that far less—myself included—have pondered the impact of this effect on the price of fuel.  The Los Angeles Superior Court will address precisely this issue after Division Seven of the Second Appellate District for the State of California ruled in Klein v. Chevron U.S.A., Inc. (2012) Case No. B219113 that the Plaintiffs’ stated valid causes of action for violation of California’s Unfair Competition Law (“UCL”) (Bus. & Prof. Code §17200 et seq.) and Consumer Legal Remedies Act (“CLRA”) (Civ. Code §1750 et seq.).

[Read More]
 
 
 
 

California Supreme Court Limits Liability Of Component Parts Manufacturers In Asbestos Cases


On January 12, 2012, the California Supreme Court issued a major victory for asbestos manufacturer-defendants in O'Neil v. Crane Co. (Case No. S177401).  This unanimous decision set important limits on the duties owed by component parts manufacturers.

[Read More]
 
 
 
 

California Court of Appeals Provides Cautionary Tale: Sanctioning Counsel for Filing Boilerplate Brief Requesting Extension of Time


The Third Division of the Fourth Appellate District for the State of California provided a cautionary tale regarding the responsibilities of being an officer of the court when it fined Respondent's attorney $10,000 for filing a boilerplate request for extension of time.  [Read More]
 
 
 
 

The New Chief Justice of the California Supreme Court


Much has been written in the last year about California’s new Chief Justice, Tani Cantil-Sakauye, who was sworn in January 3, 2011 to replace Chief Justice Ron George. 

Here are five interesting facts about California's Chief Justice Cantil-Sakauye that caught our eye.

[Read More]
 
 
 
 
 

Duane Morris Appellate Law

Duane Morris’ appellate group provides commentary on the logic and art of handling complex appellate issues - from developments in specific appeals in the federal circuits to trends materializing in state appellate courts.

Search Duane Morris Appellate Law's blog

« May 2012
SunMonTueWedThuFriSat
  
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
  
       
Today
 
© 2009- Duane Morris LLP. Duane Morris is a registered service mark of Duane Morris LLP.
The opinions expressed on this blog are those of the author and are not to be construed as legal advice.