Writer’s Picks: Lawyers Behaving Badly

by Courtney Minick (@caminick)

Well, it hasn’t been a good week for the reputation of the legal profession.

By now, you’ve heard that the 9th Circuit ruled on Padilla v. Yoo, finding that plaintiffs do not have a cause of action against the former Deputy Assistant Attorney General John C. Yoo for injuries suffered as a result of Mr. Yoo’s “torture memos.” The Court found that Yoo was entitled to qualified immunity under Ashcroft v. al-Kidd, because regardless of the legality of plaintiff’s detention and the wisdom of Yoo’s judgments, at the time he acted the law was not “sufficiently clear that every reasonable official would have understood that what he [wa]s doing violated[d]” plaintiff’s rights.
Continue reading →

Notable Opinions this Week – Global Warming Insurance, False Statements and Health Care Fraud Class Actions

by Cicely Wilson

Our Daily Opinion Summary writers have picked some interesting cases to highlight this week, with one in particular cutting close to home.

First up, we leave the lower forty-eight and head up to Alaska with AES Corp. v. Steadfast Ins. Co.. The case involved the village and city of Kivalina, a community located on an Alaskan barrier island, which filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court against AES and other defendants for allegedly damaging the village by causing global warming through the emission of greenhouse gases. AES requested that Steadfast provide a defense and insurance coverage pursuant to the terms of their commercial general liability policy. Steadfast provided AES a defense under a reservation of rights and filed a declaratory judgment action, claiming that it did not owe AES a defense or indemnity regarding the Complaint brought by Kivalina. The circuit court granted Steadfast’s motion for summary judgment, holding that the Complaint filed by Kivalina did not allege property damage caused by an “occurrence” as that term was defined in AES’s contracts of insurance with Steadfast.
Continue reading →

Who Has the Most Current Online Maps: Google, Bing or Yahoo?

by Ken Chan

During a recent trip to Washington, D.C., I discovered that the reflecting pool between the Lincoln Memorial and the National World War II Memorial had lost a bit of its luster. From inside the Lincoln Memorial, my gaze at the National Mall was interrupted by fencing, heavy equipment, and an empty pool.

However, an aerial view of Washington, D.C. from Google Maps provided no hint of the ongoing construction. So, based on some online research, I wanted to determine when the aerial photo used by Google was taken, as well as whether Google, Microsoft/Bing or Yahoo offered the most up-to-date maps.
Continue reading →

Writer’s Picks: Miranda, Superman and Bad Men Provisions

by Courtney Minick (@caminick)

Here are some of the more interesting opinions issued this week, collected by our Daily Summary writers.

In State v. Eli, the Hawaii Supreme Court found that a police practice of asking an arrestee to tell his or her “side of the story” prior to offering Miranda warnings violates the defendant’s constitutional right against self-incrimination and right to due process. In this case, the “pre-interview” statements were thrown out, and the case remanded for a new trial.

The 9th Circuit issued an opinion on intellectual property and the Superman comic. In Pacific Pictures Corp. et al v. USCD-CALA, the Court refused to protect documents included in a subpoena under attorney client privilege. In this case, an attorney absconded with his client’s intellectual property, and the US Attorney was called to investigate. The US Attorney’s office issued a subpoena for copies of the stolen property, and promised that if the complainant complied with the request, they would not provide the documents to non-governmental third parties. The Court found that since Congress has declined to extend attorney client privilege to such materials, the Court was not in the position to do it here.
Continue reading →

Don’t Get a Ticket for Parking at an Unmarked Curb

by Ken Chan

Lunch at Justia is a time reserved for scholarly legal debate. Our focus recently turned to the legality of parking a vehicle along an unmarked curb outside a local Chipotle. On a day when we thought the God of Parking was gracing us with his magnificence, any semblance of karma was purely illusory.

First, we pulled adjacent to the curb. From California Vehicle Code § 21458, we know the meaning of the following curb colors:

(1) Red indicates no stopping, standing, or parking, whether the vehicle is attended or unattended, except that a bus may stop in a red zone marked or signposted as a bus loading zone.

(2) Yellow indicates stopping only for the purpose of loading or unloading passengers or freight for the time as may be specified by local ordinance.

(3) White indicates stopping for either of the following purposes:

(A) Loading or unloading of passengers for the time as may be specified by local ordinance.

(B) Depositing mail in an adjacent mailbox.

(4) Green indicates time limit parking specified by local ordinance.

(5) Blue indicates parking limited exclusively to the vehicles of disabled persons and disabled veterans.

So, since the curb was not red, we were in the clear, right?

Continue reading →

Writer’s Picks

by Courtney Minick (@caminick)

Our daily summary writers chose some interesting cases to share this week.

The 4th Circuit issued an opinion remanding the Rosetta Stone v. Google trademark case back to the district court for further proceedings. Rosetta Stone complained that Google AdWords infringed on their trademarks and caused likely and actual confusion for consumers. As Eric Goldman notes — “how 2005.” Professor Goldman has an excellent and detailed post on this case and its ramifications for trademark actions against Google. Go there for details.
Continue reading →

Cases of the Week

by Courtney Minick (@caminick)

Our summary writers have highlighted some interesting cases this week — all from state supreme courts.

The Illinois Supreme Court ruled on an assault weapons ban, remanding it back to the trial court to determine whether the law comports with the Second Amendment. In Wilson v. Cook County, the court found that given the early stage of the litigation, it cannot be said conclusively whether “assault weapons” as defined by the ordinance fall within the scope of rights protected by the Second Amendment. The question requires an empirical inquiry, beyond the scope of both the record and judicial notice. The county has not had an opportunity to establish a nexus between the ordinance and the protected governmental interest.
Continue reading →

10 Free Cover Photos for Your Facebook Profile Page

by Ken Chan

Creating a Facebook cover photo for your profile page can be difficult. The cover photo dimensions (i.e., 851 pixels x 315 pixels) require a long and narrow crop from a standard photo. If you are still searching for that ideal image to show your love for law and government, we have you covered. Justia is releasing 10 free Facebook cover photos for you to use on your own profile. Click on the smaller image to access the cover photo in full resolution.

Facebook Cover Photo of The White House

Continue reading →

Justia’s Top 10 Lists for March 2012

by Joel Zand (@jzand)

Here is a rundown of March’s highest scoring lawyers on Justia Legal Answers, along with a look at which Justia Dockets legal filings, Tech Law blog posts, and Facebook posts readers viewed the most.

Justia Legal Answers’ Top 10 Legal Answerers for March 2012

  1. Min G. Kim, 880 points, 18 answers
  2. David Philip Shapiro, 705 points, 14 answers
  3. Gojko Kasich, 600 points, 12 answers
  4. Vincent Ronald Ross, 560 points, 12 answers
  5. Andrew Bresalier, 500 points, 10 answers
  6. Daniel Marc Berman, 430 points, 18 answers
  7. Janet Rubel 400 points, 8 answers
  8. James Kenneth Sweeney, 300 points, 6 answers
  9. Benjamin P. Urbelis 250 points, 5 answers
  10. Michael Howard Joseph, 210 points, 5 answers

Continue reading →

Opinions of the Week

by Courtney Minick (@caminick)

We have some interesting cases from our daily summary writers this week. At the intersection of reality TV and the law comes Edmonds v. Oktibbeha County (5th Cir.). In this case, the Court upheld the denial of a 42 USC 1983 claim of a coerced confession from a minor, after the minor went on the Dr. Phil show and told a national television audience that deputies did not coerce him into confession.

The Maryland Court of Appeals issued an interesting decision in a child custody case that involved a conflict of laws with Japanese family courts. In Toland v. Futagi, the Court upheld the Japanese decision to award custody of the minor to her maternal grandmother, a Japanese national. The child grew up in Japan and spent her whole life there. When her mother died, the grandmother took custody. The Maryland Court found that this decision did not infringe on the due process rights of the American father, and that the lower court properly declined to exercise jurisdiction over the child, who had no connection to the state.
Continue reading →