Notable legal developments

Moderators: shutout, evs' Boytoy, Irish Mike

51.HG 2.0 » Tue Jun 25, 2019 4:47 pm

Should have been $40 million
Quote

User avatar 52.DocZaius » Tue Jun 25, 2019 5:47 pm

It baffles me that Oberlin couldn't see liability when its dean of students was out there with the protestors, handing out fliers accusing the bakery of being racist. Plus all the statements of support for the poor thieving and protesting students, and to top it all off, cancelling their contract with the bakery.
Quote

53.evil gator » Tue Jun 25, 2019 5:51 pm

It baffles me that Oberlin couldn't see liability when its dean of students was out there with the protestors, handing out fliers accusing the bakery of being racist. Plus all the statements of support for the poor thieving and protesting students, and to top it all off, cancelling their contract with the bakery.
yeah do those bleeding hearts not have a fucking lawyer telling them not to get involved?
Quote

User avatar 54.DocZaius » Tue Jun 25, 2019 6:19 pm

It baffles me that Oberlin couldn't see liability when its dean of students was out there with the protestors, handing out fliers accusing the bakery of being racist. Plus all the statements of support for the poor thieving and protesting students, and to top it all off, cancelling their contract with the bakery.
yeah do those bleeding hearts not have a fucking lawyer telling them not to get involved?
You'd think, but shockingly, people don't always listen to their lawyers.
Quote

55.evil gator » Tue Jun 25, 2019 6:27 pm

It baffles me that Oberlin couldn't see liability when its dean of students was out there with the protestors, handing out fliers accusing the bakery of being racist. Plus all the statements of support for the poor thieving and protesting students, and to top it all off, cancelling their contract with the bakery.
yeah do those bleeding hearts not have a fucking lawyer telling them not to get involved?
You'd think, but shockingly, people don't always listen to their lawyers.
yeah last week our comms guy was ready to issue a statement on some ongoing litigation WITHOUT checking with our lawyer on said litigation :roll:
Quote

56.9508 » Tue Jun 25, 2019 6:28 pm



yeah do those bleeding hearts not have a fucking lawyer telling them not to get involved?
You'd think, but shockingly, people don't always listen to their lawyers.
yeah last week our comms guy was ready to issue a statement on some ongoing litigation WITHOUT checking with our lawyer on said litigation :roll:
Yikes!
Quote

57.evil gator » Tue Jun 25, 2019 6:42 pm

who doesn't know that??
Quote

58.evil gator » Fri Jun 28, 2019 2:55 pm

here's something I wrote up for coworkers I thought some of you might enjoy:

One of the key cases is Chevron, wherein federal agencies have broad authority to regulate unless a statute specifically does not allow it.

From https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/chevron_deference#

One of the most important principles in administrative law, The “Chevron Deference” is a term coined after a landmark case, Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 468 U.S. 837 (1984), referring to the doctrine of judicial deference given to administrative actions. In Chevron, the Supreme Court set forth a legal test as to when the court should defer to the agency’s answer or interpretation, holding that such judicial deference is appropriate where the agency’s answer was not unreasonable, so long as the Congress had not spoken directly to the precise issue at question. The scope of the Chevron deference doctrine is that when a legislative delegation to an administrative agency on a particular issue or question is not explicit but rather implicit, a court may not substitute its own interpretation of the statute for a reasonable interpretation made by the administrative agency. Rather, as Justice Stevens wrote in Chevron, when the statute is silent or ambiguous with respect to the specific issue, the question for the court is whether the agency’s action was based on a permissible construction of the statute. The Chevron deference first requires that the administrative interpretation in question was issued by the agency charged with administering that statute being construed. Accordingly, interpretations by agencies not in charge of that statute in question are not owed any judicial deference. Also, the implicit delegation of authority to an administrative agency to interpret a statute does not extend to the agency’s interpretation of its own jurisdiction under that statute.
Generally, to be accorded Chevron deference, the agency’s interpretation of an ambiguous statute must be permissible, which the court has defined to mean “rational” or “reasonable.” In determining the reasonableness of a particular construction of a statute by the agency, the age of that administrative interpretation as well as the congressional action or inaction in response to that interpretation at issue can be a useful guide, if the Congress was aware of the interpretation when it acted or refrained from action, and when the agency’s interpretation is not inconsistent with the clear statutory language.
In subsequent cases, the Supreme Court has narrowed the scope of Chevron deference, holding that only the agency interpretations reached through formal proceedings with the force of law, such as adjudications, or notice-and-comment rulemaking, qualify for Chevron deference, while those contained in opinion letters, policy statements, agency manuals, or other formats that do not carry the force of law are not warranted a Chevron deference. In such cases, the Court may give a slightly less deferential treatment to the agency’s interpretation, giving a persuasive value under the Court’s “Skidmore deference” analysis.
--
As you might image, Chevron is loathed by most conservatives, and has played an important part of President Trump’s judicial appointments. In a case of be careful what you wish for though, some legal scholars have opined that limiting Chevron could, in fact, limit the Trump Administration’s regulatory rollbacks.
There’s never a dull moment when it comes to legal interpretations of key statutes!
Quote

User avatar 59.Irish Mike » Fri Jun 28, 2019 2:59 pm

here's something I wrote up for coworkers I thought some of you might enjoy:

One of the key cases is Chevron, wherein federal agencies have broad authority to regulate unless a statute specifically does not allow it.

From https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/chevron_deference#

One of the most important principles in administrative law, The “Chevron Deference” is a term coined after a landmark case, Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 468 U.S. 837 (1984), referring to the doctrine of judicial deference given to administrative actions. In Chevron, the Supreme Court set forth a legal test as to when the court should defer to the agency’s answer or interpretation, holding that such judicial deference is appropriate where the agency’s answer was not unreasonable, so long as the Congress had not spoken directly to the precise issue at question. The scope of the Chevron deference doctrine is that when a legislative delegation to an administrative agency on a particular issue or question is not explicit but rather implicit, a court may not substitute its own interpretation of the statute for a reasonable interpretation made by the administrative agency. Rather, as Justice Stevens wrote in Chevron, when the statute is silent or ambiguous with respect to the specific issue, the question for the court is whether the agency’s action was based on a permissible construction of the statute. The Chevron deference first requires that the administrative interpretation in question was issued by the agency charged with administering that statute being construed. Accordingly, interpretations by agencies not in charge of that statute in question are not owed any judicial deference. Also, the implicit delegation of authority to an administrative agency to interpret a statute does not extend to the agency’s interpretation of its own jurisdiction under that statute.
Generally, to be accorded Chevron deference, the agency’s interpretation of an ambiguous statute must be permissible, which the court has defined to mean “rational” or “reasonable.” In determining the reasonableness of a particular construction of a statute by the agency, the age of that administrative interpretation as well as the congressional action or inaction in response to that interpretation at issue can be a useful guide, if the Congress was aware of the interpretation when it acted or refrained from action, and when the agency’s interpretation is not inconsistent with the clear statutory language.
In subsequent cases, the Supreme Court has narrowed the scope of Chevron deference, holding that only the agency interpretations reached through formal proceedings with the force of law, such as adjudications, or notice-and-comment rulemaking, qualify for Chevron deference, while those contained in opinion letters, policy statements, agency manuals, or other formats that do not carry the force of law are not warranted a Chevron deference. In such cases, the Court may give a slightly less deferential treatment to the agency’s interpretation, giving a persuasive value under the Court’s “Skidmore deference” analysis.
--
As you might image, Chevron is loathed by most conservatives, and has played an important part of President Trump’s judicial appointments. In a case of be careful what you wish for though, some legal scholars have opined that limiting Chevron could, in fact, limit the Trump Administration’s regulatory rollbacks.
There’s never a dull moment when it comes to legal interpretations of key statutes!
Hey! That's gre.... ZZZZZZZZzzzzzz
Quote

60.evil gator » Fri Jun 28, 2019 3:19 pm

come on you are bound to impress the guys at the bowling alley with your understanding of chevron!
Quote

User avatar 61.Irish Mike » Fri Jun 28, 2019 3:20 pm

come on you are bound to impress the guys at the bowling alley with your understanding of chevron!
I don't bowl!

Horseshoe pit maybe....
Quote

62.9508 » Fri Jun 28, 2019 3:28 pm

come on you are bound to impress the guys at the bowling alley with your understanding of chevron!
I don't bowl!

Horseshoe pit maybe....
You seem more of a cornhole guy.
Quote

63.gatorbreeze » Fri Jun 28, 2019 3:30 pm

come on you are bound to impress the guys at the bowling alley with your understanding of chevron!
I don't bowl!

Horseshoe pit maybe....
Cane Booster club meeting might work better.
Quote
Remember when you were young, broke and pissed off at the world? Well, you're older now.

64.evil gator » Fri Jun 28, 2019 4:11 pm

don't make me opine on Auer
Quote

User avatar 65.Irish Mike » Fri Jun 28, 2019 4:16 pm

come on you are bound to impress the guys at the bowling alley with your understanding of chevron!
I don't bowl!

Horseshoe pit maybe....
You seem more of a cornhole guy.
:nope:
Quote

66.9508 » Fri Jun 28, 2019 5:08 pm


I don't bowl!

Horseshoe pit maybe....
You seem more of a cornhole guy.
:nope:
Badminton?
Quote

User avatar 67.DocZaius » Wed Jul 10, 2019 4:43 pm

9th Circuit judge calls out horrible 8th season of Game of Thrones in an otherwise-boring opinion about securities litigation.

https://www.cnet.com/news/game-of-thron ... ral-judge/
In the opinion filed July 5, Judge John B. Owens writes that the US Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit won't discard a prior legal precedent "the way that Game of Thrones rendered the entire Night King storyline meaningless in its final season."
Image
Quote

68.evil gator » Wed Jul 10, 2019 5:04 pm

wouldn't a judge be mad if a lawyer put that sort of thing in a brief?
Quote

User avatar 69.DocZaius » Wed Jul 10, 2019 5:15 pm

wouldn't a judge be mad if a lawyer put that sort of thing in a brief?
Most of them, yeah. You might get away with it in state court if you know your judge really well and know he might get a kick out of it, but I don't know of any decent lawyer who would try that in a federal appeals court.
Quote

70.evil gator » Wed Jul 10, 2019 5:46 pm

wouldn't a judge be mad if a lawyer put that sort of thing in a brief?
Most of them, yeah. You might get away with it in state court if you know your judge really well and know he might get a kick out of it, but I don't know of any decent lawyer who would try that in a federal appeals court.
yeah it seems like he just wants to get into the news
Quote
Sort by

« Sports, Entertainment, and Everything Else