February 15, 2008
Oregon Case on First Impression of Wrongful Death Venue
This is an interesting one for the court's fine analysis of the textual "clues" involved in ascertaining the answer to a question that is, on its face, quite unclear. Venue statute says, basically, a wrongful death claim can be brought, among other places, in the county where the claim arose. If the injury that led to death is in county A, but death occurs in county B, where did the wrongful death claim arise?
Where the injury occurred, is the answer of the Oregon Supreme Court in Howell v. Willamette Urology (Or. 2008).
It's an interesting, brief, opinion that relies heavily on the fact that under Oregon law a wrongful death claim can be filed prior to death, and must be filed within three years of the time the plaintiff knew, or should have known, of the claim. It's a well-done opinion, in my view, and you ought to enjoy it. Quite short.
And, significant - I would imagine that, for Oregon for example, this means that claims can be brought in smaller communities, even though death may occur later in larger communities with different jury pools. No doubt significant practical impact for lawyers, too.
Now, I hadn't realized a wrongful death claim could accrue before death, and that realization made me think: I would hate to be a plaintiff and awake from a coma, or whatever, and find there's a wrongful death claim already pending in my name! To quote Monty Python, "I'm not dead yet."
February 13, 2008
New Fascinating BAPCA Case from Judge Feeney
In re Phillips, 2008 WL 352396 (Bankr. D. Mass. Feb. 7, 2008) provides a fascinating discussion of the Bankruptcy Abuse and Consumer Protection Act of 2005 and its "problematic language" and the "interpretive difficulties" it has created. It discusses an enormous morass of opinions splitting on the definition of "projected disposable income" under the statute, and is quite a fun read.
February 11, 2008
Fit for a Bar but not a Church
As reported on a fellow blog: "Specter Introduces Bill Concerning Copyright Exception for Nonprofit Churches and Other Religious Organizations to Show Super Bowl Game."
On February 4, 2008, Senator Arlen Specter introduced a bill to exempt churches and other religious organizations from copyright laws that currently prevent religious entities from showing football games on big screen TVs. Senator Specter's statement in support of the new legislation points out the significant need for this bill:
Mr. President, I rise to introduce legislation which would modify the limitations on churches showing the Super Bowl under the NFL copyright franchise. Churches across the country were notified by the NFL not to show the Super Bowl on a big screen because it infringed their copyright. There is an exception under the copyright laws for bars. It is anomalous that you can go to a bar and see the Super Bowl, but you cannot go to a church for a social gathering and do the same. This legislation will correct that.
At first, I thought this was a joke, but the bill is Senate Bill No. 2591, introduced in the 110th Congress.
It's good to know that what's important is getting priority in DC!
A bit of humor for you.