Novalawcity

Mildred Loving has died

Mildred Loving, a plaintiff in the landmark case Loving v. Virginia that overturned the last segregation laws, died on May 2 at age 68.  From the New York Times: 

By their own widely reported accounts, Mrs. Loving and her husband, Richard, were in bed in their modest house in Central Point in the early morning of July 11, 1958, five weeks after their wedding, when the county sheriff and two deputies, acting on an anonymous tip, burst into their bedroom and shined flashlights in their eyes. A threatening voice demanded, “Who is this woman you’re sleeping with?”

Mrs. Loving answered, “I’m his wife.”  

Mr. Loving pointed to the couple’s marriage certificate hung on the bedroom wall. The sheriff responded, “That’s no good here.”

The certificate was from Washington, D.C., and under Virginia law, a marriage between people of different races performed outside Virginia was as invalid as one done in Virginia. At the time, it was one of 16 states that barred marriages between races.

For those who haven't heard their story before, it is well worth clicking through to read.

 

I knew there was something I intended to do April 15

Actor Wesley Snipes, star of the Blade movies, was sentenced to three years in prison by the federal district court in Ocala and ordered to pay $5,000,000 in fines.  Prosecutors said that the sentence, the maximum  possible for the misdemeanor of failing to file tax returns, should send a strong message that such an oversight has the potential to land you in jail.  Snipes was convicted of failing to file federal tax returns for 1999, 2000 and 2001. 

Duke Redux - Back to the Court of Public Opinion

This story has its roots in the charges of sexual assault brought against members of the Duke University lacrosse team in 2006.  Charges were eventually dropped, and Nifong, the district attorney who oversaw the case, was disbarred.  In February, members of the lacrosse team and their families brought suit against Duke and the City of Durham, seeking monetary compensation for the damages they sustained during the prolonged period of time during which they were tried in the news and in the court of public opinion.  They are represented by Robert Bork, Jr., son of the nominee for the Supreme Court who failed to win approval from the Senate in hearings that gave us the verb "borked." 

The lawyers representing the lacrosse team members are keeping a blog detailing the procedural course of the lawsuit and, as is usual in blogs, larding their entries with statements of personal opinion.  Duke and its co-defendants requested that the court sanction the attorneys for violating the North Carolina Code of Professional Conduct by making statements "disseminated by means of public communication which would have a substantial likelihood of materially prejudicing an adjudication" on the lawsuit. Essentially,  Duke contended that Bork's blog would taint the jury pool in the jury trial defendants have requested.  Last week, US district court judge James Beaty denied their motion.

This case is an interesting look at the impact of Internet-mediated information on the course of justice.  Judge Beaty did not sanction the blogging attorneys, but issued guidance to both sides as to how they should conduct their relations with the media.  For more information, see the article in the April 14 issue of The National Law Journal

A Victory for the Deer

The U. S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit has ruled that FEMA is bound by an injunction prohibiting it from issuing national flood insurance for new developments in the Florida Keys until it satisfies the requirements of the Endangered Species Act to "insure" that its actions are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of endangered species or their habitat.  In a decision sure to be applauded by environmentalists, the Court ruled that the Endangered Species Act does apply to FEMA's administration of the National Flood Insurance Program.  The lawsuit was first filed in 1990, after it was determined that FEMA's actions in issuing national flood insurance had the potential to drive the Florida Key Deer to extinction.  Read an account of the decision in the Tuesday, April 15 issue of The U.S. Law Week

Analysis of yesterday's Danforth v. Minnesota decision

From ScotusBlog's Lyle Denniston, thoughts on one of the Supreme Court's most recent decisions: Analysis: 'Creating' or 'declaring' rights.

Judge rules that avvo.com may continue to rate lawyers

Remember avvo.com, the free lawyer rating service that had some attorneys steamed because they didn't like their ratings?  Well, two of them were so upset that they filed a class-action complaint againt the company.  First Amendment Center news now reports that Federal district court judge Robert Lasnik has dismissed the complaint, stating

"To the extent that their lawsuit has focused a spotlight on how ludicrous the rating of attorneys (and judges) has become, more power to them.  To the extent that they seek to prevent the dissemination of opinions regarding attorneys and judges, however, the First Amendment precludes their cause of action."

Read the full opinion here.

World's Weirdest Cases

As a teaser for a new column that will focus on weird legal cases, Professor Gary Slapper, director of the UK Open University Centre for Law, compiled twenty of his favorite weird cases for the Times Online.  Many of them focus on sex, but there is also the man who sued a TV station for making him smoke and his family obese, an astrologer who sued NASA for violating the balance of the universe, and a man who sought legal permission to name his son @.

Enjoy!

Florida Supreme Court rules on lethal injection

Yesterday the Florida Supreme Court ruled unanimously in Schwab v. State of Florida that the state's procedure for execution by lethal injection does not violate the Constitution's prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment, particularly as additional protocols have been added since the execution of convicted killer Angel Diaz, which took twice as long as usual.

Read more about the Schwab case at the Sun-Sentinel, or read the opinion at the Florida Courts website [pdf link].

Plagiarism is costly

TaxProf Blog reports via the Volokh Conspiracy that an Iowa attorney has been ordered to take a law school professional responsibility course after plagiarizing two briefs. From the court's order:

After reading both briefs filed by Mr. Cannon, and concluding that both contained an extraordinary amount of research, the Court directed Mr. Cannon to certify the author or authors of the two briefs. On December 22, 2006, Mr. Cannon certified that while he had prepared both briefs, he had "relied heavily" on an article written by others. The article upon which Mr. Cannon relied is Why Professionals Must Be Interested in "Disinterestedness" Under the Bankruptcy Code, May 2005, ("the Article") by William H. Schrag and Mark C. Haut, two attorneys of the New York office of Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP. The Court located this article on the internet. Mr. Cannon fails to acknowledge or cite this article in either brief.

Mr. Cannon's second violation of the Iowa Rules of Professional Conduct was in charging his client $5,737.50 for 25.5 hours of work in preparing the two briefs. This amount is unreasonable given the actual labor Mr. Cannon invested in these projects. ... Mr. Cannon billed his client for 25.5 hours of work to prepare the two briefs. Because he could not have expended that number of hours in locating the Article, copying it into his word processing program, and adding what little material he did, his fees are far in excess of what other lawyers would charge for this amount and type of work. ...

Because Mr. Cannon does not appreciate the nature of plagiarism, a continuing education class will not cure his ethical shortcomings. Mr. Cannon's deficiency calls for the more-involved method of instruction offered in a law school course on professional responsibility.

The course will likely cost far less than the embarrassment and damage to his professional reputation

Gunster Yoakley v. McAdam

Law.com reports that the 4th District Court of Appeals upheld a $1 million malpractice judgment against Florida firm Gunster Yoakley & Stewart awarded to Charles McAdam and Frank Gannett McAdam, heirs the Gannett newspaper fortune.

Visit Law.com for the story or read the opinion on the 4th DCA's website.