April 25, 2008
"I try not to read that many cases"
In case you haven't seen it, check out this story, which involves the following exchange at a recent 5th Circuit oral argument:
Judge: You don’t know Morgan?
Judge: You haven’t read it?
Phipps: I try not to read that many cases, your Honor. Ricks is the only one I read. Oh,
Ledbetter, I read Ledbetter, and I read that one that they brought up last night.
I don’t know if that’s not Ledbetter, I can’t remember the name of it. Ricks is the
one that I go by; it’s my North star. Either it applies or it doesn’t apply. I don’t
think it applies.
Judge: I must say, Morgan is a case that is directly relevant to this case. And for you
representing the Plaintiff to get up here—it’s a Supreme Court case—and say
you haven’t read it. Where did they teach you that?Gavel_15
Phipps: They didn’t teach me much, Your Honor.
Judge: At Tulane, is it?
Judge: Okay. Well, I must say, that may be an all time first.
Phipps: That’s why I wore a suit today, Your Honor.
Judge: Alright. We’ve got your attitude, anyway.
(Hat tip to the Legal Profession Blog) --RR
April 23, 2008
Petitions to Watch
SCOTUS Blog has a recurring feature called Petitions to Watch, which is an attempt to predict the petitions the court is likely to grant. Of particular interest to our readers will be the petitions in two cases involving federal court jurisdiction issues--Perez v. City of Miami Beach, which the court will consider at its April 25 conference, and Centerior Energy Corp. v. Milkulski, which the Court will consider at its May 8 conference. The links above are to the petitions in each case. SCOTUS Blog has additional information on all the petitions considered at the April 25 and May 8 conferences, including briefs in opposition and the underlying opinions.--Counseller
April 21, 2008
What Twombly and Mead have in Common
Prof. Amy J. Wildermuth recently posted an essay on the Northwestern Colloquy, titled What Twombly and Mead Have in Common. Thanks to Editor Kristin Feeley for the heads-up and the following summary:
Professor Amy Wildermuth discusses the similarity between the Supreme Court cases Twombly and Mead. She analyses how both decisions, written by Justice Souter, appear to state a relatively clear rule that fundamentally alters procedural law, but then discusses exceptions or additions that could swallow the general rule. She concludes that the Supreme Court should revise either Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 8 or Rule 9 to clarify the confusion that has resulted from Twombly.