"Always bear in mind that your own resolution to succeed is more important than any other one thing." - Abraham Lincoln, 1855.

"Abstractions are a lawyer’s stock in trade. No one has ever seen a presumption of innocence, tasted a Huntley hearing or touched privity of contract." - Susan McClosky, "Making the Language of the Law Intelligible and Memorable," New York State Bar Journal, November 1999.

BRIEF RELIEF
Matters in Progress

Draft Complaints and Interrogatories in Product Liability matter.

California cases on custody.

Federal Court jurisdiction - challenge to jurisdiction and extension of limitation period as result of being out of jurisdiction.

Florida child custody jurisdiction on removal of child to foreign country.

Service under Hague Convention.

Removal and remand procedure in Federal Court action.

California extraordinary writ and appeal.

Obtaining case and statutory law of Georgia on issue of liability of abutting landowner for damage due to defective retaining wall.

Challenge of undue influence in estate matter against second wife and execution of revised will.

PUBLICATIONS OF INTEREST

Black, Roy. Black’s Law: A Criminal Lawyer Reveals His Defense Strategies in Four Cliffhanger Cases. Simon & Schuster, 1999.

Powhida, Alexander. Forced Organ Donation: The Presumed Consent to Organ Donation Laws of the Various States and the United States Constitution. Albany Law Journal of Science & Technology, Vol. 9, No. 2, 1999, pg. 349.

Chemerinsky, Erwin. Silence Is Not Golden: Protecting Lawyer Speech Under the First Amendment. Emory Law Journal: Summer 1998, Vol. 47, Iss. 3.

Esquibel, Amanda K. An Article 9 Primer Regarding Uninsured Collateral Destroyed by Tortfeasor. University of Kansas Law Review: January 1998, Vol. 46., Iss. 2.

Roman, Regina E. "Malpractice: Assignment of Claims," The National Law Journal, September 20, 1999.

Pettit, Douglas A. "Malpractice: Settlement Claims," The National Law Journal, September 20, 1999.

MATTERS OF INTEREST

U.S. Supreme Court

There is no murder scene exception to the Warrant Clause of the Fourth Amendment. The Court reversed the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia, which held that after a homicide crime scene was secured for investigation, a search of "anything and everything found within the crime scene area" was "within the law." The Court applied Mincey v. Arizona, 437 U.S. 385 (1978), which flatly rejected a murder scene exception to the Warrant Clause. Flippo v. West Virginia, No. 98-8770.

Third Circuit Court of Appeals

Where a divorce agreement said that an ex-wife would get part of her husband’s pension when he retired but did not say what would happen if he died first, she cannot collect any survivor’s benefits. Samaroo v. Samaroo, No. 98-5245.

Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals

When a claim regarding the impropriety of the prosecution’s argument is framed as a violation of due process, the appropriate inquiry is whether the prosecution’s comments so infected the trial with unfairness that there is a reasonable probability that the result would have been different if the proceeding had been conducted properly. Jackson v. Johnson, 10/29/99.

Oregon Court of Appeals

Defendant challenged the admissibility of a gun discovered in a fanny pack in his car. The trial court erred in admitting a gun found when the police searched the fanny pack without a warrant. The automobile exception did not apply because the police had impounded the car prior to the search thereby eliminating the exigency necessary to support that exception. State v. Resler, (CA A102448).

Washington Supreme Court

While Greene’s dissociative identity disorder (DID) was admissible as a generally accepted psychiatric condition, expert testimony on the matter was properly excluded under ER 702. The testimony would not have been helpful to the trier of fact since it was not possible to scientifically connect the DID symptoms with the mental state of the defendant at the time of committing the crime. State v. Green, No. 67250-4.

California Supreme Court

Since Menezes’s negligence directly caused only economic injury, property damage, and breached no duty independent of the contract, Erlich may not recover damages for emotional distress based upon the breach of a contract. Erlich v. Menezes, No. S068325 (8/23/99).

Illinois Supreme Court

Where the county plowed snow into a mound that obstructed the view at an intersection, it can be sued for the car accident that injured the plaintiff. The Court said that while the county did not have a duty to "remove natural accumulations of ice and snow...[T]he immunity conferred by [the statute] is...subject to the requirement...that local public entities exercise due care in the maintenance of their property...if a local public entity undertakes snow-removal operations, it must exercise due care in doing so." Ziencina v. The County of Cook, No. 85541 (9/30/99).