Monday, December 25, 2006
New favorite blog.
I'm so glad I found it. There's actually a blog about splits among the circuit couts. Appropriately named Split Circuits
, the blog is written by Professor A. Benjamin Spencer of the University of Richmond School of Law. It's definitely worth your while.
E.I Dupont de Nemours & Co. ("Dupont") sought to enjoin a company from acquiring another company. Dupont argued that the transaction would violate a contract it had with the acquiring company. The District Court denied Dupont's motion for a preliminary injunction, and Dupont appealed.
After the notice of appeal had been filed, the transaction at issue broke down. Dupont moved to dismiss its appeal and to remand the Court with instructions to dismiss the action. The Court agreed to do so, holding that while a voluntary cessation of allegedly illegal contact does not render an appeal moot where such cessation is a stategic litigation move, this is not the case where the party alleging the illegal contact asserts that the claim is moot and where the cessation of the alleged wrongdoer was not done to avoid a possible adverse decision by the Court. While the possibility that the acquiring company might at a later date seek again to acquire the other company, it was not attempting to do so currently. Hence, the case was moot.
The decision in E.I. Dupont de Nemours & Co. v. Invista B.V.
can be found here
A criminal defendant in United States v. Moreno-Rivera
filed an untimely notice of appeal. The government moved to dismiss. The defendant, under prior Second Circuit, claimed that the Court should remand the case to the District Court with instructions to vacate the judgment and enter a new judgment from which an appeal could be taken based on the inadequate assistance of appellate counsel. The Government argued that the precedent only applied in cases where it was undisputed that the defendant had instructed his counsel to file a notice of appeal and the counsel did not do so in a timely manner. The Second Circuit agreed, finding that the record on the issue did not clearly show that the defendant had asked his attorney to file a notice of appeal and dismissed the appeal.
The decision in this case can be found here
Friday, December 15, 2006
Ownership of Kidney
. The Second Circuit had referred certain questions relating to the ownership of a kidney to the New York Court of Appeals. The plaintiff had sued the New York Donor Network, Inc., claiming that it had violated his rights in a kidney by delivering the kidney to someone else. The Court held that the plaintiff did not have a private right of action against the Donor Network because the kidneys at issue were medically incompatible with him.
The Court of Appeals' decision in Colavito v. New Your Organ Donor Network, Inc.
can be found here
. My prior post on this case can be found here
. The case will now return to the Second Circuit for resolution.
Wednesday, December 13, 2006
. The Government has decided to appeal
from the District Court's decision in American Council of the Blind v. Paulson
, the case which requires the Government to make its paper money so that the blind can tell the difference between a one and a twenty.
My prior post on this case can be found here
. Of course, it's only two posts down, so you might not want to bother clicking and just scroll down.
Tuesday, December 05, 2006
Law Student Blog.
As my regular readers (and I know there are not many of you) know, I have adopted a law student blog as my own special blog. This is my second such blog, the first being the gone-but-not-forgotten Letters of Marque by Heidi Bond (now clerking for Judge Kozinsky of the Ninth Circuit). My new law student blog is by a nameless student from a nameless school. I had previously mentioned the blog, but it has changed its name. It's now called Butterflyfish
. I gather that the anonymous blogger is a fish enthusiast. Check it out. I'm sure you'll like it.