July 7, 2009
When May a Judge Do Something that's Required?
Love this one. The Wisconsin statute provides:
If a person complains to a judge that he or she has reason to believe that a crime has been committed within his or her jurisdiction, the judge shall examine the complainant under oath and any witnesses produced by him or her and may, and at the request of the district attorney shall, subpoena and examine other witnesses to ascertain whether a crime has been committed and by whom committed. The extent to which the judge may proceed in the examination is within the judge's discretion. . . .
Does the judge HAVE to examine all the witnesses? No, says the Wisconsin Supreme Court in a case decided here, Wisconsin v. Madden, __ N.W.2d __ (Wis. June 2009).
July 6, 2009
Interesting Teaching Methodology
Two states interpret a similar statute in different ways; write a letter to the client. That's the subject of one assignment which I stumbled across. The article by Lisa T. McElroy of Drexel is here.
Holy Trinity Wise but Would be Ignored Today?
The DC Circuit of course is the King of APA and Chevron deference cases, and it wrote a beautiful opinion about cable operations (that's sad that I can call an opinion on cable operations beautiful after having majored in English and read Chaucer, and so on, but I digress). The opinion in Nat'l Cable Telecomm. Ass'n v. FCC, __ F.3d __ (Fed. Cir. May 2009), is too complex to summarize, but fascinating. Be sure to read the concurrence.