"No man is infallible; the wisest make' mistakes; but the law holds no man responsible for the consequences of his mistakes which are the result of the imperfection of human judgment, and do not proceed from fraud, gross carelessness or indifference to duty." Heisler v. Sharp, 44 N.J. Eq. (Prerog. Ct. 1888)

BRIEF RELIEF MATTERS IN PROGRESS

1. ERISA research as to recovery of overpayment and mistake in calculation of amount due.
2. Search for Delaware Corporate Statutes on removal of directors and shareholder meetings.
3. Michigan research on employment agency.
4. Research on evidence issue as to use of prior criminal conviction to impeach witness/party.
5. Research as to seeking attorney fees from N.Y. landlord/tenant action in both N.Y. and N.J. courts.
6. Opposition to N.Y. summary judgment on alleged failure to state a cause of action.
7. Obtain copies of articles on "Field Sobriety tests."

CASES OF INTEREST

1st Circuit
Rogers v. Vicuna (8/28/01-No. 00-2051) IRS agents do not need a warrant to enter private property and seize a taxpayer's vehicle pursuant to a levy where the taxpayer' vehicle is clearly visible from the street on an unobstructed driveway.

2nd Circuit
Civil Procedure
Irby v. New York City Transit Auth., No. 00-9421 (August 22, 2001) litigants who move for summary judgment against pro se litigants must provide the pro se party with notice of the requirements of Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or summary judgment will result in vacatur, no matter how meritorious, unless the movant shows that the pro se was aware of the rule's requirements.

Criminal Law & Procedure
Leka v Portuondo, No. 00-2002 (July 12, 2001) an off-duty police offiecer's eye-witness testimony that was inconsistent with prosecution witnesses' testimony regarding the killer's identity was information favorable to defendant and subject to Brady disclosure.

4th Circuit Court of Appeals
JKC Holding Co. LLC v. Washington Sports Ventures, Inc. (9/7/01- No. 00-2511) Opinions and predictions of what a party hopes or anticipates will happen are not statements of material fact, and where the other party continues with the contract in reliance on the opinions, it cannot claim common law fraud because it has assumed the risks that the predictions will not come to pass.

5th Circuit
US v. Rodriquez. (7/30/01- No. 99-10982) The government may not argue that the jury should infer a defendant's guilt directly from his pose-arrest silence, and where the prosecutor argues that the silence is the "most important evidence" on the issue of intent, the error is not harmless.

9th Circuit
Amster v. City of Tempe, Arizona. (5/15/01- No. 00-15387) The district court erred when it enjoined the Defendant/Appellant from enforcing a city ordinance that required a permit to sit or lie down on a public sidewalk. Facial freedom-of-expression can only be entertained when the statute seeks to "regulate spoken words or patently expressive or communicative conduct" which defined as "conduct that conveys a particularized message that observer's are likely to understand." Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397, 404 (1989).

USA c. Velasco-Heredia, (5/10/01 No 00-50107) The district court erred by using the preponderance of evidence standard of proof to determine the amount of marijuana which appellant possessed. Appellant argued that under Jones v. United States, 526 US 227 (1999), the government must prove the quantity of drugs beyond a reasonable doubt. Apprendi v. New Jersey. 530 US 466 (2000) held that other than prior convictions, any fact increasing to a jury and the jury must prove the quantity beyond a reasonable doubt.

Oregon Supreme Court
Criminal Procedure
State v. Joslin (SC S46491) a defendant subjected to custodial interrogation, who was not told by police that the lawyer had advised defendant not speak to police until the lawyer was present, did not knowingly waive his right against compelled self-incrimination under Article I, section 12, of the Oregon Constitution.

PUBLICATIONS OF INTEREST

Family Law Quarterly, Vol. 35, No. 1, Spring 2001: "Uniform Parentage Act (2000) (with Unofficial Annotations).

Temple Law Review, Vol. 74, NO. 1, Spring 2001: "The 2000 Amendments to the Federal Discovery Rules and the Future of Adversarial Pretrial Litigation.

An important study of the history and law of the abortion rights controversy: N.E.H. Hull and Peter Hoffer, Roe v. Wade: The Abortion Rights Controversy in American History (Lawrence: University of Kansas Press, 2001).

Dress for Success: be formal but not inflated, issue of tone applicable to all legal writing. The Legal Writer, By Gerald Lebovits. N.Y. State Bar Journal (July/August 2001)

Imagining the Law of the Future: The New York Times, September 7, 2001 By Carl S. Kaplan.

In times of Crisis, Law Speaks, but often with a Forked Tongue, Legal Times By Evan P. Schultz, September 17, 2001.