Articles Posted in Miscellaneous

I argued a case before the Tennessee Supreme Court yesterday, and reflecting on that experience last night gave rise to several thoughts that I would like to share.

First, although I have had the opportunity to argue cases before the Court in the past, yesterday is a particularly memorable experience. June 8th was the Chief Justice’s last day of hearing oral arguments, and our argument was the 2nd to last argument he heard as a judge with 35 years on the Bench. Those of you from Tennessee know that Chief Justice Drowota is a good man who has served our State in exceptional fashion. His presence will be missed, his absence felt. I hope that his successor will bring the same sense of honor, compassion and commitment to excellence to the Bench.

Second, the Court’s first order of business yesterday was to swear in a new lawyer who could not attend the group ceremony the day before. I had not attended one of these ceremonies in many years, and it moving to hear the Chief Justice administer the oath. Those of you who have not heard it in a few years need to find an opportunity to hear it. Those words give us strength to fight the good fight.

The Internet is the great equalizer. It allows solo practioners in Burning Stump, Tennessee to have access to the same information available to the biggest law firm in the biggest bank building in the the biggest city. All you need is a computer, an Internet connection, and time.

Gloria Miccioli, a law librarian for 23 years, has written a great article that will help us get a grasp on the vast resources available to those of us who do medical research on the Web. It is filled with information about free sites and fee-based sites. If you do (or should be doing) medical research you will want to read this article.

Thanks to Gloria for sharing your knowlege with us. And thanks to Evan Schaeffer and his wonderful blog for informing me about this great article.

I would say that this is a familiar story, but that would only be partially correct.

Ok, it starts out familar. Man has affair. He says he loves his girlfriend. He says he is going to leave his wife. He leaves his wife. He and his lover live together. They travel together. They talk about marriage. He says he will support her. But he doesn’t divorce his wife. He stays married. OK. But now we break from the story line we have heard in the past.

This goes on 23 years. That’s right, 23 years. He breaks off the relationship. He gives her some back end cash. She’s upset, and sues him for breach of the promise to marry, fraud, palimony, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and more.

That’s right. I just finished a ten-day vacation and now I have decided to take Saturday off. I can’t help it. I have a hearing that will consume June 2, 3, 6 and 7, an argument in the Tennessee Supreme Court on June 8, and a mediation in a major case on June 9. That schedule – coupled with a status conference in another case on June 1 – has made the last 5 days a whirlwind. So, no substantive blog today.

Have a wonderful weekend.

I was out of town for ten days on what I believe was a well-deserved vacation. I got back in town Saturday night. Sunday morning my wife and I got on our motorcycles and had a beautiful ride through rural Middle Tennessee. The honeysuckles are in bloom; the smell is intoxicating.

Joy and I went to Paris (France, not Tennessee) and had a wonderful time on our vacation. Warning: do not try to touch Napoleon’s desk at Fontainebleau – an alarm will sound.

Those of you who do not drink wine should stay away from Paris unless you have money to burn. Per serving, both Coke and water in restaurants are more expensive than wine. As a boy originally from rural Wisconsin, I was happy to save money and drink wine. I was amazed to learn that in France they sell wine in bottles that have corks in them. When do you think we will start that in the good ol’ USA? The screw tops on the wine bottles I usually buy here are convenient but I have to admit that cork thing is cool!

You cannot count on getting more time to do “discovery” in response to a motion for summary judgment. In Guzman-Ruis v.. Hernandez-Colon the defendant filed motion for summary judgment. Plaintiffs received one extension of time to respond, but failed to respond by the extended deadline. Some two months later, plaintiffs requested another extension to conduct further discovery. The court of appeals affirmed the district court’s denial of plaintiffs’ motion, stating that such extensions required due diligence both (a)in pursuing discovery before the summary judgment initiative surfaces and (b)in pursuing an extension of time thereafter. Read the opinion here.

To avoid this problem, start your discovery as early as reasonably possible. If the motion for summary judgment comes early, immediately serve the discovery you need and seek the depositions you need. Make sure your motion for an extension does not just ask for “more time;” be specific about what you need. And, for heaven’s sake, if you get an extension do your best to get your discovery done in the time you have been given.

Dayontorts.com knows no bounds to bring you what’s goin’ down in tort law.

Apparently my man Eminem (is it still cool to say “my man”?)(come to think about it, is is still cool to say “cool”?) wrote a “song” called Brain Damage, and told Rolling Stone that the song lyrics that discussed his childhood experiences with the plaintiff DeAngelo Bailey were true. Plaintiff decided to sue Eminem, thankfully deciding that it was a better course than cappin’ the dude. The suit alleged false-light invasion of privacy and negligence.

The Michigan Court of Appeals held that a claim of false-light invasion of privacy was not made out because the song contains several clues that the lyrics should not be taken literally and, given plaintiff’s admission that he picked on Eminem and did “bully type things” to him, the “substantial truth” test was met.
The negligence claim was dismissed because the plaintiff did not properly raise that issue on appeal.

The Supreme Court Of Mississippi has affirmed a trial court’s denial of motions to dismiss claims brought against a Mississippi bishop and Diocese arising out of priest pedophilia. The Church asserted First Amendment and other claims in an effort to avoid the suit.

A discovery dispute was also resolved by the Court.

Read the opinion here. To those who don’t have time to read the 80+ page opinion (including concuring and dissenting opinions) here is a newspaper article reporting on the case.

Last year former Supreme Court Justice Penny White, former Court of Appeals Judge Joe Riley and I started “Justice Programs.” The company produces seminars for Tennessee lawyers.

Last year was a great success. We had hundreds of people from across the state attend. This year we have expanded our efforts to offer 15 CLE hours in one program, including 3 hours of ethics credit, so that Tennessee lawyers can meet their annual CLE requirement in one program.

For more information see our website

The Maine Supreme Court has ruled that the Roman Catholic Bishop of Portland cannot assert the First Amendment as a defense to a claim of negligently supervising a pedophile priest.

The Court reviewed the First Amendment law on point and noted that “[t]he Diocese has not asserted that it actually holds to ecclesiastical doctrines concerning sin, penance, forgiveness and redemption that would have prevented or restricted the Bishop from intervening after learning that Melville might be sexually abusing boys, or from otherwise reporting this information to the police or the members of the parish.”

The Cour had this to say about the assertion of the Diocese that “‘the intrinsic logic of any judicial declaration and administration of a standard of care for church oversight of clergy necessarily will involve the [c]ourt deeply in matters of theology and governance:’ We do not accept this logic. It is not self-evident in this case that the application of a duty of due care will cause the Superior Court ‘to probe deeply . . . into the allocation of power within a [hierarchical] church so as to decide . . . religious law [governing church polity]’ in violation of either the First Amendment or Article I, section 3 of the Maine Constitution.” (citations omitted). Read the opinion here.