Doran v. 7-Eleven, Inc., 524 F.3d1034 (9th Cir. 2008) - District Court erred in dismissing wheelchair-bound plaintiff's Americans with Disabilities Act case for lack of standing.
(So is that irony or just a bad pun?)
Thursday, November 10, 2011
Sunday, October 30, 2011
Until Next Season...
"People ask me what I do in winter when there's no baseball. I'll tell you what I do. I stare out the window and wait for spring."
--Rogers Hornsby (St. Louis Cardinals from 1915-1926, 1933)
--Rogers Hornsby (St. Louis Cardinals from 1915-1926, 1933)
Friday, October 21, 2011
Math and engineers
A logician, a physicist, a statistician, and an engineer enter a mathematics contest, the first task of which is to prove that all odd integers are prime.
The logician argues: "3 is a prime, 5 is a prime, 7 is a prime. Therefore, by induction, all odd numbers are prime."
It's the physicist's turn: "3 is a prime, 5 is a prime, 7 is a prime, 9 is not a prime, 11 is a prime, 13 is a prime. Within experimental error, all odd numbers are prime."
The statistician states: "Let's try several randomly chosen numbers: 17 is a prime, 23 is a prime, 11 is a prime... our sample shows that all odd numbers are prime."
The engineer responds: "We just need to run a test, starting with the largest odd number and working backwards..."
(A lawyer puts forward that it is impossible to determine whether 1 is a prime or not, therefore we need not reach a result on 3, 5, 7, or 9)
The logician argues: "3 is a prime, 5 is a prime, 7 is a prime. Therefore, by induction, all odd numbers are prime."
It's the physicist's turn: "3 is a prime, 5 is a prime, 7 is a prime, 9 is not a prime, 11 is a prime, 13 is a prime. Within experimental error, all odd numbers are prime."
The statistician states: "Let's try several randomly chosen numbers: 17 is a prime, 23 is a prime, 11 is a prime... our sample shows that all odd numbers are prime."
The engineer responds: "We just need to run a test, starting with the largest odd number and working backwards..."
(A lawyer puts forward that it is impossible to determine whether 1 is a prime or not, therefore we need not reach a result on 3, 5, 7, or 9)
Tuesday, October 11, 2011
Yes, oops.
"The Internet has brought many new things into our lives, including the opportunity to display poor judgment on a global basis in nano-seconds."
--Loudoun Sheriff candidate Ron Speakman, regarding his forwarding a definitively male picture to a campaign volunteer.
--Loudoun Sheriff candidate Ron Speakman, regarding his forwarding a definitively male picture to a campaign volunteer.
Wednesday, August 10, 2011
Random statute of the day
In Virginia, if livestock breaks into property enclosed by a fence which meets certain specifications (the specifications are geared toward strength and effectiveness, e.g., minimum height, how many strands of barbed wire), the owner of the animals is liable for the damages. Upon a second occurrence by the same animal, punitive damages of up to $40.00 are authorized. Va. Code § 55-306.
No, the statute hasn't been updated in a few decades.
No, the statute hasn't been updated in a few decades.
Monday, July 25, 2011
Debt picture
I know there are plenty of descriptions of the U.S. debt going around, but I'll add to the discussion:
The C-130 Hercules military transport plane has a maximum payload, in the C-130H iteration, of 45,000 lb. I will assume that interior space is not an issue, mostly because that is a lot of calculating to do.
A $100 bill weighs 1 gram (1/454 lb.).
454 bills / lb. x $100 / bill = $45,400 / lb.
$45,400 /lb. x 45,000 lb. / payload = $2,043,000,000 / payload
The Boehner plan would have $2.5 trillion available by early next year. Again for time reasons, I will assume that that means by 4/1/2012, or 250 days away.
Thus, starting today,
$2.5x10^12 / $2x10^9 / load = 1,250 loads
1,250 loads / 250 days = 5 loads / day
or one C-130 stuffed to the gills with $100 bills every 4 hours and 48 minutes.
With a cruising speed of 292 knots or 336 mph, that means if the C-130s had to fly the cash from San Antonio to New York, a great circle distance of about 1,600 miles, there would always be a plane in the air to keep up this schedule. Just to cover those costs of the United States government greater than revenue, without paying down a cent toward debt reduction.
The C-130 Hercules military transport plane has a maximum payload, in the C-130H iteration, of 45,000 lb. I will assume that interior space is not an issue, mostly because that is a lot of calculating to do.
A $100 bill weighs 1 gram (1/454 lb.).
454 bills / lb. x $100 / bill = $45,400 / lb.
$45,400 /lb. x 45,000 lb. / payload = $2,043,000,000 / payload
The Boehner plan would have $2.5 trillion available by early next year. Again for time reasons, I will assume that that means by 4/1/2012, or 250 days away.
Thus, starting today,
$2.5x10^12 / $2x10^9 / load = 1,250 loads
1,250 loads / 250 days = 5 loads / day
or one C-130 stuffed to the gills with $100 bills every 4 hours and 48 minutes.
With a cruising speed of 292 knots or 336 mph, that means if the C-130s had to fly the cash from San Antonio to New York, a great circle distance of about 1,600 miles, there would always be a plane in the air to keep up this schedule. Just to cover those costs of the United States government greater than revenue, without paying down a cent toward debt reduction.
Tuesday, June 21, 2011
Telling the Truth
Lawyers enjoy a little mystery, you know. Why, if everybody came forward and told the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth straight out, we should all retire to the workhouse.
Sir Impey Biggs
Clouds of Witness
Dorothy L. Sayers
Sir Impey Biggs
Clouds of Witness
Dorothy L. Sayers
Thursday, June 16, 2011
Hurray for theoretical physics
(Reprint of picture believed to be public domain. Please submit any copyright issue to the gmail (.com) address which begins with gbacopyright)
Monday, May 30, 2011
Problem Projects
"At my age, if you have a problem with one of your projects, you probably just don't have enough clamps."
~BEK - while working on a troublesome picture frame -
Age 80
~BEK - while working on a troublesome picture frame -
Age 80
Tuesday, May 24, 2011
Obligatory Levitical Legalism
Deuteronomy 18:20-22 (ESV)
20 But the prophet who presumes to speak a word in my name that I have not commanded him to speak, ... that same prophet shall die. 21 And if you say in your heart, 'How may we know the word that the LORD has not spoken?'-- 22 when a prophet speaks in the name of the LORD, if the word does not come to pass or come true, that is a word that the LORD has not spoken; the prophet has spoken it presumptuously. You need not be afraid of him.
20 But the prophet who presumes to speak a word in my name that I have not commanded him to speak, ... that same prophet shall die. 21 And if you say in your heart, 'How may we know the word that the LORD has not spoken?'-- 22 when a prophet speaks in the name of the LORD, if the word does not come to pass or come true, that is a word that the LORD has not spoken; the prophet has spoken it presumptuously. You need not be afraid of him.
Wednesday, May 18, 2011
Gaming the system
The interesting case law for today could also be known as the Tale of the Collections Attorney Who Was Too Clever By Half:
J. I. Case Co. v. United Virginia Bank, 232 Va. 210 (1986) - Plaintiff filed an action in detinue (requesting return of specific personal property rather than just its value) seeking the recovery of unsold heavy equipment in the possession of its debtor's bank, who had seized the equipment from the debtor's inventory under a UCC lien. It sought and obtained a prejudgment attachment of the property, and posted a bond which was "void unless the right of possession ultimately was judged against" the Plaintiff. The sheriff went out, collected the equipment, and handed it over to the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff then removed the equipment from Virginia, and ultimately distributed the equipment across the country for retail sale. Thinking it had accomplished everything it had set out to do by getting the equipment away from the bank, an (allegedly) secured creditor with an inferior claim to the equipment, the Plaintiff filed a nonsuit of right under Virginia Code § 8.01-380, dismissing the action before the bank and the debtor had an opportunity to present their full defense to the Plaintiff's claim or obtain the judgment needed to collect on the bond.
HELD: without completing a final judgment on the detinue action, the plaintiff had no adjudicated right to the property, and the defendants had a right to its return without any further proceedings. Because the equipment had been disposed of by the Plaintiff, judgment was entered for the value of the equipment against the Plaintiff.
Unsaid in the opinion is that by trying to pull a fast one like this, it sounds like the Plaintiff disposed of the only property in which it had a security interest, which demoted it to an unsecured creditor fighting for whatever scraps might be left over after the bank and other secured creditors took out their portions. Also unresolved (but left for the trial court) was whether the bond was satisfied by such a judgment.
J. I. Case Co. v. United Virginia Bank, 232 Va. 210 (1986) - Plaintiff filed an action in detinue (requesting return of specific personal property rather than just its value) seeking the recovery of unsold heavy equipment in the possession of its debtor's bank, who had seized the equipment from the debtor's inventory under a UCC lien. It sought and obtained a prejudgment attachment of the property, and posted a bond which was "void unless the right of possession ultimately was judged against" the Plaintiff. The sheriff went out, collected the equipment, and handed it over to the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff then removed the equipment from Virginia, and ultimately distributed the equipment across the country for retail sale. Thinking it had accomplished everything it had set out to do by getting the equipment away from the bank, an (allegedly) secured creditor with an inferior claim to the equipment, the Plaintiff filed a nonsuit of right under Virginia Code § 8.01-380, dismissing the action before the bank and the debtor had an opportunity to present their full defense to the Plaintiff's claim or obtain the judgment needed to collect on the bond.
HELD: without completing a final judgment on the detinue action, the plaintiff had no adjudicated right to the property, and the defendants had a right to its return without any further proceedings. Because the equipment had been disposed of by the Plaintiff, judgment was entered for the value of the equipment against the Plaintiff.
Unsaid in the opinion is that by trying to pull a fast one like this, it sounds like the Plaintiff disposed of the only property in which it had a security interest, which demoted it to an unsecured creditor fighting for whatever scraps might be left over after the bank and other secured creditors took out their portions. Also unresolved (but left for the trial court) was whether the bond was satisfied by such a judgment.
Wednesday, May 11, 2011
Good Wife Points
I have so many "Good Wife Points" built up just now. I am going to have to figure out something good to spend them on soon.
Tuesday, April 19, 2011
Legal Food Frenzy
A recent study by Feeding America found that over 1,000,000 Virginians are considered “food insecure.” This represents nearly a forty percent increase since 2006. A large number of these individuals are children, senior citizens, disabled adults, and the new face of hunger—individuals who have lost their jobs and are having problems making ends meet. In fact, Virginia’s food banks are currently experiencing record demand for services.
THE RESPONSE
In response to this urgent need, the Office of the Attorney General, The Virginia Bar Association Young Lawyers Division, and the Federation of Virginia Food Banks joined efforts in 2007 to create the Statewide Legal Food Frenzy—a food and fund drive competition among all Virginia law firms and organizations. In this friendly competition, the law firm or organization that raises the most food (based on a per person average—attorneys and staff) will be awarded the prestigious and highly coveted “Attorney General’s Cup.” In addition, Attorney General C------- will be awarding winners of the sole practitioner, small, medium, and large size firm categories. The top law school will be awarded the prized “Mini Attorney General’s Cup” and a special award will be given to the top government/public interest office.
Over the past four years, law firms, legal organizations, and law schools who participated in the Statewide Legal Food Frenzy have raised the equivalent of more than 5,400,000 pounds of food.
This year, we hope is to raise the equivalent of at least 1,600,000 pounds of food, so that we can meet our five year goal of raising the equivalent of 7,000,000 pounds of food for Virginians in need. To reach our goal, we need each and every law firm, legal department, law office, law school, and court in Virginia to participate.
The Brain and his firm, being lovers of food, participated with gusto. They amassed about 2250 pounds of supplies to donate to the cause. They are hoping to win the competition so that they can go to Richmond and meet the AG... oh wait... They are hoping to win the competition because it would be a tangible way to benefit the community, raise awareness of an under addressed situation, and demonstrate the importance of generosity. And they like to win.
The picture is all the water that was loaded into Warwick today. Hurray for strong trucks!
Friday, April 15, 2011
Very Judicious
Defense Counsel: I need at least 25 pages to summarize all my legal arguments, your honor.
Judge: You can write 25 pages, counselor, so long as you tell me which 15 pages I should read.
Defense Counsel: Should I put that in the Order?
Judge: No.
(via On the Record in Cook County.)
Page limits are usually a good thing for a profession headed by a group which can publish hundred page opinions on whether a person had a proper opportunity to be heard. The 15 pages in Illinois sounds a little generous in fact - Virginia usually limits briefs to 5 pages. Makes you think about what is important.
Friday, March 04, 2011
Legal term of the Day: Writ of venditioni exponas
Though this term is a bit of a mouthful, and probably makes some of you think of something that Hermione Granger would have found in an obscure volume, this is a helpful common law tool in collections work.
In essence, the writ commands a sheriff who has levied on property (to satisfy an unpaid judgment) to attempt a second time to sell the property even though there were no bidders at the first sale without having to repeat the levy process.
In Virginia, the writ has been expanded by statute (Va. Code § 8.01-211) to allow the Commonwealth, in cases where persons owe the government money, to use the writ to transport the property (magically, we might say, to keep up the J. K. Rowling theme) from the county where the levy took place to an adjoining county where, if all goes well, the other sheriff will be able to find a bidder in the new pool of buyers.
In essence, the writ commands a sheriff who has levied on property (to satisfy an unpaid judgment) to attempt a second time to sell the property even though there were no bidders at the first sale without having to repeat the levy process.
In Virginia, the writ has been expanded by statute (Va. Code § 8.01-211) to allow the Commonwealth, in cases where persons owe the government money, to use the writ to transport the property (magically, we might say, to keep up the J. K. Rowling theme) from the county where the levy took place to an adjoining county where, if all goes well, the other sheriff will be able to find a bidder in the new pool of buyers.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)