The Plain Meaning Rule And The FOI Exemption For Homicide Photographs
Posted: May 25, 2014 Filed under: Appellate Law | Tags: 1-2z, 13-311, favish, homicide photographs, perkins, Sandy Hook 2 CommentsThis post is about how General Statutes section 1-2z, which codifies the “plain meaning rule” of statutory interpretation, can lead to judicial interpretations of statutes that are completely at odds with what everyone knows the legislature actually intended when passing a law. To illustrate my point, I examine legislation enacted in 2013 concerning homicide photographs.
Supreme Court Rules On Town Meeting Prayers
Posted: May 5, 2014 Filed under: Appellate Law | Tags: coercion, establishment of religion, first amendment Leave a commentA divided (5-4) United States Supreme Court ruled today that a small town in New York that opened virtually every single town meeting since 1999 with a prayer expressly invoking Jesus as lord and savior did not run afoul of the First Amendment prohibition against government establishment of religion.
When Inadvertent Errors Change The Law
Posted: May 5, 2014 Filed under: Appellate Law Leave a commentIn a recent post I suggested that the Connecticut Supreme Court had misinterpreted one of its own cases and then incorporated that mistake in a recent decision, thereby perpetuating what I believe was an unintended change in the law concerning judicial deference to an administrative agency’s interpretation of its own regulations.
Message To Law Clerks: Protect Your Bosses From Embarrassment
Posted: April 30, 2014 Filed under: Appellate Law | Tags: law clerks, scalia Leave a commentJustice Scalia made what some are describing as an “epic blunder” in his dissent yesterday in Environmental Protection Agency v. EME Homer City Generation, in which the Supreme Court upheld the EPA’s right to regulate coal pollution that moves across state lines.
Interpreting Administrative Regulations–Part Two
Posted: April 24, 2014 Filed under: Appellate Law | Tags: 1-2z, administrative agencies, chevron deference, seminole rock deference 1 CommentIn Part One of my two-part series on interpreting administrative regulations, I discussed my disagreement with the Connecticut Supreme Court’s position, set forth in Sarrazin v. Coastal, Inc., that General Statutes section 1-2z applies to administrative regulations–given that the plain language of 1-2z refers only to “statutes.” In this post I discuss my disagreement with the Court’s position that an administrative agency’s interpretation of its own regulation is not entitled to any deference unless it is “time-tested, reasonable or the result of formal rule-making procedures.”
How 1-2z Asks Judges To Do The Impossible
Posted: April 21, 2014 Filed under: Appellate Law | Tags: 1-2z Leave a commentGeneral Statutes section 1-2z has been on my mind lately. While pondering it, the thought occured to me that, construed literally, the statute asks judges to do the impossible. Allow me to explain.
The Real-World Impact Of The Supreme Court’s Campaign Finance Ruling
Posted: April 3, 2014 Filed under: Appellate Law | Tags: campaign finance, citizens united, first amendment, mccutchen 1 CommentWhat is the likely impact, in the real world of politics, of yesterday’s 5-4 Supreme Court decision in McCutcheon v. Federal Election Comm’n, which struck down a federal law that limited the total or “aggregate” amount of money an individual could contribute to candidates and PACs in a federal election cycle?
Supreme Court Continues To Gut Campaign Finance Laws
Posted: April 2, 2014 Filed under: Appellate Law | Tags: campaign finance, citizens united Leave a commentA divided (5-4) United States Supreme Court today struck down a federal law limiting the total or “aggregate” amount of money that a single person can contribute to all federal candidates. I’m not an authority on campaign finance law, but I do know one thing: if you really want to understand the majority opinion in a Supreme Court case, you should begin by reading the first several paragraphs of the dissenting opinion (if one exists). Here is what Justice Breyer, joined by Justices Ginsburg, Sotomayor and Kagan, had to say in the opening paragraphs of his dissent in McCutcheon v. Federal Election Comm’n:
The “Perkins” Case And The “Legimate Public Concern” Test
Posted: March 25, 2014 Filed under: Appellate Law | Tags: favish, freedom of information, invasion of privacy, legitimate matter of public concern, perkins 2 CommentsIf you are a CT-N junkie like me, or have been following reports in other media outlets concerning proposed legislation that would restrict access under the state Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”) to crime scene photographs and 911 calls, you’ve probably heard many references to two court cases, one called “Perkins,” the other called “Favish.” The two cases establish different legal standards for determining when the public disclosure of a government document would constitute an invasion of someone’s personal privacy. In fact, Don DeCesare, the co-chairman of the Task Force on Victim Privacy and the Public’s Right to Know, jokingly said in testimony before a legislative committee two weeks ago that he wished he had never heard of those two cases. (They were discussed ad nauseam during task force meetings.)
How Facebook Ruined A Summer Vacation (And A Father-Daughter Relationship)
Posted: March 7, 2014 Filed under: Appellate Law | Tags: claw back, confidentiality, employment law, Facebook Leave a commentI do not practice employment law, but I know a good employment law case when I see one. Longtime Connecticut employment attorney Lori Rittman Clark, who is now practicing in Massachusetts, writes about Snay v. Gulliver Prepatory School, a case out of Florida involving the intersection of Facebook, settlement agreement confidentiality and claw back provisions. In an excerpt from her blog, Clark writes:
Appealingly Brief! 