The Paul Vallas Case Ctd.
Posted: November 14, 2013 Filed under: Appellate Law | Tags: paul vallas, quo warranto Leave a commentThe Supreme Court just released its decision in Lopez, et al. v. Bridgeport Board of Education, et al.,, otherwise known as the Paul Vallas case, about which I have previously posted. The Supreme Court held that absent fraud, a quo warranto action can not be used to mount a collateral attack on an administrative agency’s determination that a public officer is qualified to hold his position. Accordingly, the Court reversed the judgment of the trial court (which had ruled that Mr. Vallas could not hold the office of superintendent) and remanded the case with instructions to dismiss the plaintiffs’ complaint.
The Skakel Opinion Ctd.–What Will The Supreme Court Do?
Posted: October 30, 2013 Filed under: Appellate Law, Practice and Procedure | Tags: bishop, habeas, michael skakel Leave a commentWith the State of Connecticut having indicated its intent to appeal the trial court decision that Michael Skakel’s attorney, Michael (“Mickey”) Sherman, failed to provide a constitutionally adequate defense for his client, many are now speculating about what the Appellate Court or, more likely, the state Supreme Court will do with the appeal. Will the Court affirm Judge Bishop’s decision, or will it reverse?
Appellate Judges: Umpires Or Gods?
Posted: October 24, 2013 Filed under: Appellate Law, Practice and Procedure | Tags: Golding, plain error, sua sponte, unpreserved issues Leave a commentOK, now that I have your attention with the admittedly over-the-top title of this post, I wanted to alert readers to a pending appeal (which I argued last March), the decision in which will reveal a great deal about how the justices of the Connecticut Supreme Court view their roles as appellate jurists. In particular, it will tell us whether a majority of the Court believes that the proper role of an appellate court is to decide the issues that the parties have raised and argued–and only those issues–or, alternatively, whether the Court believes that it is appropriate to decide cases based on issues that appellate judges raise on their own initiative. In short, can and should appellate courts raise and decide unpreserved issues sua sponte?
“Who” Decides? The Paul Vallas Case.
Posted: September 23, 2013 Filed under: Appellate Law Leave a commentNearly 25 years ago, Pnina Lahav, my constitutional law professor at BU School of Law, taught me one of the most important lessons I would ever learn about the law and about judging: “Who” should decide a legal issue is often much more important than “how” the legal issue should be resolved.
On Lawyers Criticizing Judges Before Whom They Appear
Posted: August 29, 2013 Filed under: Appellate Law, General Law 1 CommentIn my immediately preceding post I gently, and I think respectfully, challenged the legal reasoning of an aspect of a decision in a recent appeal that I lost. Several colleagues, friends and family members, whose opinions I value, called me to ask whether I should have refrained from publishing that post. Their concern was that openly challenging the reasoning of a tribunal before which I regularly appear could hurt me professionally.
I have given considerable thought to their concerns. On reflection, however, I think they are misplaced. Read the rest of this entry »
Final Judgments–Arggghhhh!!
Posted: August 21, 2013 Filed under: Appellate Law, Practice and Procedure | Tags: final judgment Leave a commentI have the utmost respect for our judges and courts, particularly the Connecticut Appellate and Supreme Courts in which I frequently argue. But my good feelings for the courts are tested when they publish decisions that suggest I filed an appeal either too early or too late. I’m an appellate advocate after all; my pride and reputation are both at stake. 🙂
On Monday, the Appellate Court issued a decision that said I filed an appeal prematurely. Ouch. So, allow me to push back, with respect of course.
Vindication At Last: Parallels Between Bysiewicz v. DiNardo And The Supreme Court’s Decision On Proposition 8
Posted: July 9, 2013 Filed under: Appellate Law Leave a commentConnecticut readers will recall the epic battle several years ago between former Secretary of State Susan Bysiewicz and the state Republican Party over whether Bysiewicz was qualified to serve as Attorney General. Although Bysiewicz persuaded Judge Michael Sheldon (now on the Appellate Court) that she met the statutory qualifications to serve as the AG, a unanimous state Supreme Court concluded otherwise.
Why Joe Friday Wouldn’t Have Made A Good Appellate Advocate
Posted: June 24, 2013 Filed under: Appellate Law, Practice and Procedure | Tags: oral argument Leave a commentThe late Jack Webb, who played Sgt. Joe Friday on “Dragnet,” is perhaps best remembered for uttering this famous line: “Just the facts, ma’am.” (Actually, according to Wikipedia, he actually said, “”All we want are the facts.”) Whatever the line, appellate advocates would do well to ignore Sgt. Friday’s focus on the facts when they argue before an appellate tribunal.
U.S. Supreme Court Agrees To Hear Recess Appointments Case
Posted: June 24, 2013 Filed under: Appellate Law | Tags: recess appointment Leave a commentThe Supreme Court agreed today to hear a very important case involving the scope of the President’s authority under the recess appointments clause of the U.S. Constitution. (Click here to read my previous post on this case.)
Briefs Are (Way) More Important Than Oral Argument
Posted: May 3, 2013 Filed under: Appellate Law, Practice and Procedure 1 CommentWhich is more important: The appellate brief or oral argument? Without question, the brief is more important. Don’t take my word; listen to Chief Justice John Roberts:
Appealingly Brief! 