Are you dizzy yet?

http://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca4/12-1444/12-1444-2013-03-14.html

The procedural history in this case must have been maddening.

The Complaint was filed in July 2005.

Cross-motions for Summary Judgment were denied in March 2008

One year later the Court sua sponte held a hearing to reconsider.

Six months after that, the Court granted Defendant’s motion for Summary Judgment.

The 4^th Circuit reversed on appeal a year after that.

Three months later Defendant asked to amend its Answer to add preclusion defenses.

The motion was denied as untimely, but in November 2011 Defendant made a new motion to amend and a motion for summary judgment based on the amendment, citing a different, more recent favorable decision.

The case went to trial with those motions outstanding.

Trial began in January 2012.

Jury found for the Plaintiff.

Defendant renewed its Motion to Amend and Motion for Summary Judgment (now a Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law).

The Court granted the motions and vacated the judgment of the jury.

Plaintiff (it won at trial but lost in post-trial motions in case you’re lost) filed an appeal.

On March 14, the 4^th Circuit granted the appeal and re-instated the jury verdict.

naturally

Dragon speaking naturally that is.
this blog post is written using Dragon NaturallySpeaking.
I've never used this program before so this is a test. I don't know how to insert a carriage return by my voice so every time it skips a line that's me hitting the return button.
So far so good. I'm hoping that having this program will allow me to get more blog posting  done.
I have learned some problems I don't also know how to backspace or delete. I'm sure that will come quickly. For now I think this is good enough there haven't been any typos or missed words I see a capitalization that was missed but we'll see what happens when I start using legal jargon.

Buckle On, McGruff!

Remember the "crime dog" McGruff?  the "take a bite out of crime" commercials?

Well McGruff better be sure and wear his seatbelt in New Jersey.

There's been a lot of news lately about how New Jersey has made it the law that all animals riding inside vehicles be restrained. 

People are upset.  They see this as the nanny state reaching to control Americans.

Some commenters have gone so far as to say this step will keep Governor Chris Christie from ever being a Republican candidate for President.

This is all very strange since the governor had nothing to do with the law that was passed back in 1995.

On May 30 the New Jersey SPCA held an educational event along with the Motor Vehicle Commission. Someone there pointed out that New Jersey has a law restricting the "cruel and inhumane" transportation of animals and that the law could be used to fine drivers who let their dogs roam free inside their cars.

Personally I think you'd be stupid to let your dog free in the car and am reminded of Andrew Burnett and Sarah McBurnett (just a weird coincidence) in California. They had an auto accident and Ms. McBurnett's dog Leo was running free inside the vehicle. I don't know if that contributed to the accident, but Andrew walked over to Sarah's car, and during their "discussion" reached inside, grabbed Leo, and tossed him out into the oncoming traffic where he was killed.

That's not the danger the SPCA is concerned with in New Jersey, but hey, a harness or crate would have saved that dog's life.

So what is the actual situation in New Jersey?

If you travel with an unrestrained animal in your car, you could be issued a summons or warning if the animal is loose in the back of a pickup or on the driver's lap, or with 30% sticking outside the car window.

So buckle up your pup unless you want McGruff from his mother's lap untimely ripped.

Condo Law

This was never an area of law I sought out, but I'm becoming well versed in it out of necessity.

One time I was asked while I was applying to law school why I wanted to be a lawyer and I joked about the statistics of lawsuits and she said "so out of self defense."
In a way, that comes true.  I am on my condo's board of directors and I have to keep checking the law on various things. I just drew up a waiver in case anyone wants to start doing improvements on the grounds on their own - because someone already has been and if he gets injured I think we should have a better defense.

Turn and Face the Strange Changes

I can't believe I have not blogged since April. How time flies.  And Blogger has changed quite a bit. It's going to take me a while to figure things out again.
I haven't been totally inactive. I've been answering questions on AVVO and now I'm building my Linked-In profile.
I've decided to focus my practice a bit into 3 areas. More to follow soon.

Did Maryland pass an Anti-Woody Allen Law?

I have just read the text of HB438, the "Civil Marriage Protection Act".

I just can't quite understand the purpose of this law, at least of parts of it.

In short, it defines marriage as a union of two individuals not otherwise prohibited from marrying. It then lays out a long string of people an individual may not marry. Finally it declares that the state won't force ministers to solemnize marriages they are opposed to on religious grounds (something no one has ever done, and the state could not ever do under the Constitution - I think it's just there to make religious people feel better).

But what's in that list of prohibited marriages?

No marrying a grandparent, parent, sibling, child or grandchild.

Okay, that's what used to be called consanguinity (having the same blood). You can't marry a close family member. Cousins? Aunts? Uncles? well....

Then there's the second list:

Grandparent's spouse, parent's sibling, stepparent, spouse's parent, spouse's child, child's spouse, grandchild's spouse, spouse's grandchild, or sibling's child.

Okay, so that rules out aunts and uncles and nieces and nephews. It also rules out people married to those close relations.

I admit to being a bit puzzled by the ban on marrying someone closely related to your spouse. As far as I know, if you have a spouse, you are married, and marrying a spouse's relative would violate the fist part of the law that defines marriage as between "two individuals." Pretty sure we already have a ban on multiple marriages so I think the legislature must have meant an ex-spouse or a late spouse.

So what does this have to do with Woody Allen?

When he and Mia Farrow were together she adopted Soon-Yi Previn. Soon-Yi was therefore Mia Farrow's daughter. For the past 15 years, Allen and Previn have been married.

Fear not though, Mr. Allen. You are in the clear.

Woody Allen was never married to Mia Farrow, so despite the impression that seems to have gotten around, he was never her father and she was not his "spouse's child".

Of course the real purpose of the law is probably in the last provision, which prevents anyone from suing the priest for refusing to solemnize their same-sex wedding vows, though of course, no state has ever required a Catholic priest to marry two Baptists so how this changes anything is beyond me.

The text of the law is pretty short

Smoothies

I don't like coffee.

I don't even like the smell of it. That makes me a pariah among some friends.

It also means that the "Starbucks office" is out of the question for me.

Well I have found a solution: Smoothie King.

The local Smoothie King has a table with a couple chairs, steady noise, foot traffic, but nobody sticks around.

I met for a networking breakfast here once and I'm hooked. The smoothies are a little pricey for a drink but cheap for a meal (and if you're watching your calories like I am it's a pretty decent meal).

Sure, no infinite refills, but I just need a place with wifi and a table and chair.

Also, when nobody else is here the barista (smoothista?) goes into the back room part of the store so I have a good deal of privacy and could even meet clients here - except when it's busy. The blender is loud.