Appellate Opinions Released June 29, 2007

The Wisconsin Supreme Court released the following opinions:

State v. Grady (postconviction motion for resentencing).

Wickenhauser v. Lehtinen (rescission of option to purchase property obtained in a prior action does not preclude a subsequent action for damages).

The Wisconsin Court of Appeals did not release any opinions.

Analyzing the Decisions of the 2006-07 Supreme Court

Video of this June 28, 2007 panel discussion, Part 1: Statements and Part 2: Discussion and Q&A

Panelists:

Prof. Orin Kerr, George Washington University Law School
Prof. Nelson R. Lund, George Mason University School of Law
Prof. Neomi Rao, George Mason University School of Law
Mr. David B. Rivkin, Baker Hostetler
Mr. Gene C. Schaerr, Winston & Strawn LLP
Prof. Ilya Somin, George Mason University School of Law
Mr. Dean Reuter, Director of Practice Groups, The Federalist Society -- Moderator

The program will examine such cases as Parents Involved In Community Schools v. Seattle School District No. 1, Morse v. Frederick, Federal Election Commission v. Wisconsin Right to Life, Inc., Gonzales v. Carhart, Wilkie v. Robbins and Hein v. Freedom From Religion Foundation, Inc..

SCOTUScast Michael Rosman on 'Morse v. Frederick'

Audio from June 28, 2007

On June 25, 2007, the U.S. Supreme Court delivered its decision on the Morse v. Frederick case. The case involved a public high school principal who, pursuant to the school district’s policy against displaying messages promoting illegal substances, disciplined a student for displaying a large banner with the slogan “Bong Hits 4 Jesus” during the Olympic torch relay, which students had been released from class to attend with some faculty supervision. The Court was asked to consider whether the suspension and the school district’s policy are unconstitutional on First Amendment grounds. In this episode of SCOTUScast, Michael Rosman, General Counsel for the Center for Individual Rights, offers his analysis of the recent decision.

A Conversation with Judge Robert H. Bork

Video from this June 27, 2007 event

Conducted by Judge A. Raymond Randolph, U.S. Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit

Introduction by Hon. Theodore B. Olson, Gibson, Dunn, & Crutcher and former U.S. Solicitor General

SCOTUScast Ken Starr on 'Morse v. Frederick'

Audio from June 26, 2007

On June 25, 2007, the U.S. Supreme Court delivered its decision on the Morse v. Frederick case. The case involved a public high school principal who, pursuant to the school district’s policy against displaying messages promoting illegal substances, disciplined a student for displaying a large banner with the slogan “Bong Hits 4 Jesus” during the Olympic torch relay, which students had been released from class to attend with some faculty supervision. The Court was asked to consider whether the suspension and the school district’s policy are unconstitutional on First Amendment grounds. In this episode of SCOTUScast, the Honorable Ken Starr, Dean and Professor of Law at Pepperdine University and former United States Solicitor General, offers his analysis of the recent decision.

SCOTUScast Steven Calabresi on 'Hein v. Freedom From Religion Foundation'

Audio from June 26, 2007

On June 25, 2007, the U.S. Supreme Court delivered its decision on the Hein v. Freedom From Religion Foundation case. The case asked whether or not tax-payers have standing under Article III of the Constitution to challenge on Establishment grounds the actions of Executive Branch officials pursuant to an Executive order. In this episode of SCOTUScast, Professor Steven Calabresi of Northwestern University School of Law and co-founder of the Federalist Society provides an analysis on the recent decision.

Integration plans rejected

Alan J. Borsuk reports in today's Milwaukee Journal Sentinel on concern over the potential effect of the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District No. 1 [185 pp. pdf] on Wisconsin's Chapter 220 program.

Administrative Register effective July 1, 2007

The Revisor of Statutes Bureau has issued the second half of Administrative Register No. 618 [61 pp. pdf].

Appellate Opinions Released June 28, 2007

The Wisconsin Supreme Court did not release any opinions today.

The Wisconsin Court of Appeals released these opinions today, recommending publication of the following:

Sierra Club v. DNR (Administrative law judge's order regarding an air emission permit was not a final order from which an appeal could be taken because it directed the DNR to make modifications to the permit that allowed for the exercise of the DNR's discretion).

The Wisconsin Court of Appeals certified these appeals to the Wisconsin Supreme Court:

State v. Davis (admissibility of defendant's statements made during or closely related to a polygraph examination).

State v. Harris (same as State v. Davis).

Political Tidbits, June 27, 2007

The latest report

2007-09 Budget Update

Senate Democrats’ Healthy Wisconsin Plan

Milwaukee Jury Finds for Defendants; Against City
in Lead Paint Case

U.S. Supreme Court Relaxes Election Ad Limits

Builders Win Case in U.S. Supreme Court

from The Hamilton Consulting Group.

Appellate Opinions Released June 27, 2007

The Wisconsin Supreme Court released these opinions today:

State v. House (evidence obtained through wiretap authorized for offenses not enumerated in statute not subject to suppression).

Avery v. Diedrich (insurance agent does not have an obligation to obtain additional insurance for insured until he agrees to do so).

The Wisconsin Court of Appeals released these opinions today, but did not recommend any for publication.

The Wisconsin Court of Appeals certified the following appeal to the Wisconsin Supreme Court today:

Town of Rhine v. Bizzell (whether a zoning ordinance creating a property classification for which no use is permitted but through a conditional use permit is constitutional; standard for establishing a public nuisance).

How Should the Courts Interpret Split Decisions?

Audio of this June 21, 2007 teleconference panel discussion

Panelists included:

Prof. Donald J. Kochan, Chapman University School of Law
Mr. Gene C. Schaerr, Winston & Strawn LLP
Prof. Louis Michael Seidman, Georgetown University Law Center
Judge David B. Sentelle, U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
Mr. Dean Reuter, Director of Practice Groups, The Federalist Society

The Supreme Court occasionally renders plurality opinions, which may involve 4-1-4 decisions or any number of other formulations of justices where no clear majority on particular issues emerges. These plurality opinions often address significant issues yet, due to the lack of a clear majority, are difficult for the lower courts, the regulated community, and practitioners to interpret and apply.

The Supreme Court provided minimal guidance on interpretation of plurality decisions in Marks v. United States, when it held: "When a fragmented Court decides a case and no single rationale explaining the result enjoys the assent of five Justices, 'the holding of the Court may be viewed as that position taken by those Members who concurred in the judgments on the narrowest grounds.'"

In United States v. Alcan, (2d Cir., 2003), that court reached a conclusion which many commentators- and courts- appear to reject:

Marks only works in instances where "one opinion can meaningfully be regarded as 'narrower' than another," King v. Palmer, (D.C.Cir.1991), that is to say, only when that narrow opinion is the common denominator representing the position approved by at least five justices. When it is not possible to discover a single standard that legitimately constitutes the narrowest ground for a decision on that issue, there is then no law of the land because no one standard commands the support of a majority of the Supreme Court.

A MADD world

A court can order a defendant to make contributions to political groups, as a condition of extended supervision, even without a finding of ability to pay, according to the court of appeals.

In order to so hold, however, the court had to completely twist the statute, misinterpreting sec. 302.113(7m)(e)1, which allows a motion to amend those conditions during the year PRIOR to release, as allowing a motion within the year AFTER release.

Subsec. 302.112(7m)(e)2, however, explicitly states that during the first year after release to ES, a defendant is barred from seeking any modifications to his conditions.

Supreme Court accepts five new cases, June 25, 2007

State v. Sumner

...did a police officer have reasonable suspicion to perform a protective frisk of a stopped motorist?

... As police waited for a tow truck to remove Sumner’s vehicle, an officer said he became concerned for his safety as Sumner kept putting his hands in and out of his pockets. The officer, who had asked Sumner to stop putting his hands in his pockets, frisked Sumner and recovered several packets of heroin.

Barbara Sands v. The Whitnall School District 2007 WI APP 3

Do the closed-session provisions of Wis. Stat § 19.85 (1) (c) implicitly create a privilege preventing discovery during civil litigation?

AccuWeb v. Foley & Lardner

...whether the facts of the case should have precluded summary judgment against AccuWeb, which claimed damages after a patent renewal fee for a device that helps controls printing press quality wasn’t paid on time.

State v. Jorgensen

Is it grounds for a new trial when a judge and prosecutor were witness to events leading to the criminal charges for which the defendant is on trial, and the jury is informed of those facts?

Muller v. Society Insurance 2007 WI APP 44

Does the made whole doctrine apply when an injured party is not made whole by a settlement even though the insurance policy limits are not exhausted? Can a subrogated insurer negotiate a tentative settlement with the guilty party in the civil lawsuit before the insured is made whole?

Missile Defense and Space Security

Audio of this June 20, 2007 panel discussion at The National Press Club, Washington, DC

Panelists include:

Dr. Robert L. Pfaltzgraff, Jr., Institute of Foreign Policy Analysis
Prof. Robert F. Turner, Center for National Security Law, University of Virginia School of Law
Dr. Leonard Weiss, Center for International Security and Cooperation, Stanford University
Dean Reuter, Director of Practice Groups, The Federalist Society -- Moderator

Space and U.S. national security are deeply entwined. The U.S. military is tremendously dependent upon satellites for intelligence gathering and for guiding military operations, and the most promising ballistic missile defense systems are space-based. Proponents of developing space-based military capabilities, including the Bush administration, maintain that this development is essential to protecting the American people and their interests. Opponents, however, argue that such development will lead to a space arms race with at least the Chinese, will hurt the U.S.’s global standing, and will actually make America less secure. What is the current state of the law- international treaties, in particular- in terms of U.S. obligations? Would a multilateral approach of demilitarizing space, including the acceptance of new legal obligations through additional international treaties, be a better way of protecting America’s interests?

Court decides endangered species, religion, student speech, campaign finance cases...

At SCOTUSblog, reports on five decisions announced today, including Federal Election Commission v. Wisconsin Right to Life.

New Trust Account Rules: Lawyer Fees and Fee Agreements

Timothy J. Pierce in Wisconsin Lawyer

A new trust account rule takes effect on July 1, 2007, along with the new Rules of Professional Conduct for Attorneys. The trust account rule contains many changes that most lawyers will need to implement in their practices. This article focuses on some of the most important changes, including new definitions of and handling instructions for advanced fees, flat fees, and retainers; the required use of written fee agreements when the cost of any representation is likely to exceed $1,000; and the ability to accept advanced payments by credit card.

Attorney General formal opinions June 8, 2007

OAG-1-07 A County Board Chairperson May Be Removed From Position By Majority Vote Of County Board

OAG-2-07 A County Board May Not Appoint Two Persons From Same Town To County Board of Adjustment

This Week in Liberal Judicial Activism: Week of June 25, 2007

Ed Whelan at Bench Memos.

Mr. Whelan was the featured speaker at our chapter's March 8th luncheon.

Lead paint suit fails

Marie Rohde reported in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel that a federal district court found for the defendant lead pigment manufacturer in a suit by the City of Milwaukee for lead paint abatement costs, apparently despite the State Bar's Litigation Section previously having found the lead paint industry liable.

Appellate Opinions Released June 22, 2007

The Wisconsin Supreme Court released these opinions today:

State v. Bobby G. (biological father must be given opportunity to develop relationship with a child of whose existence he did not learn until after a petition to terminate his parental rights is filed).

Kasten v. Doral Dental USA (right of a non-managing member of a limited liability company to inspect draft documents and e-mails).

The Wisconsin Court of Appeals did not release any opinions today.

Appellate Opinions Released June 21, 2007

The Wisconsin Supreme Court released the following opinions:

State v. Lackershire (defendant allowed to withdraw sexual assault guilty plea upon objection that the circuit court's plea colloquy failed to determine whether she was the victim of a rape rather than the perpetrator of a sexual offense).

State v. Howell (entitlement to a hearing on a motion to withdraw guilty plea).

The Wisconsin Court of Appeals released these opinions, recommending the following for publication:

State v. Routon (sale of psilocybe mushroom spores and a kit for growing mushrooms to an undercover officer sufficient to support conviction for conspiracy to manufacture psilocybin/psilocin).

Appellate Opinions Released June 20, 2007

The Wisconsin Supreme Court did not release any opinions.

The Wisconsin Court of Appeals released these opinions, recommending the following for publication:

State v. Galvan (court does not need to assess a defendant's ability to pay a surcharge when it is imposed as a condition to extended supervision).

Appellate Opinions Released June 19, 2007

The Wisconsin Supreme Court released the following opinion:

FAS, LLC v. Town of Bass Lake (A navigable stream meandering over a parcel does not divide the property into two parcels when the same riparian owner owns the property on both shores of the stream).

The Wisconsin Court of Appeals released these opinions, recommending the following for publication:

Jantzen v. Jantzen (maintenance payments).

Apology for a New Review

...Russell Kirk's explanation at the inauguration of Modern Age in 1957 ...

Legal Services Consumer Protection Act Offers Needed Safeguards

Our State Bar's President-Elect says

The petition asks the Court, which has jurisdiction over the practice of law in the state, to take two actions: 1) Adopt a new rule to clearly define the what constitutes the "practice of law" for consumer protection purposes; and, 2) Create an administrative system to enforce the new rule.

Paragraph 12 of the Petition says this administrative system would include a Legal Services Office of Consumer Protection in the current Office of Legal Regulation, paid for by an increase in the OLR assessment.

'Gonzales v. Carhart': Its Aftermath and Implications for Abortion Regulation and Jurisprudence

Audio of this June 14, 2007 panel discussion at The National Press Club, Washington, DC

On April 18, 2007, the Supreme Court ruled that the Federal Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003 does not violate a constitutional right to abortion. The 5-4 decision in the case, Gonzales v. Carhart, upheld, for the first time, a law that bans a specific abortion method, even though it does not contain an explicit exception for considering the mother’s health.

The action now moves to the states, where many legislatures are expected to consider new abortion restrictions and strengthen old ones. This whirlwind of action in state legislatures will likely produce accompanying activity before the nation’s courts, since new abortion restrictions are likely to be challenged.

Panelists include:

Eve C. Gartner, Senior Staff Attorney, Planned Parenthood Federation of America
Marsha D. Greenberger, President, National Women’s Law Center
Cathleen Cleaver Ruse, Senior Fellow-Legal Studies, The Family Research Council
M. Edward Whelan, III, President, Ethics and Public Policy Center
Judith C. Applebaum, Director of Programs, The American Constitution Society, Moderator ...

Sponsored by The Federalist Society's Religious Liberties Practice Group, The American Constitution Society, and The Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life

Mr. Whelan was the featured speaker at our chapter's March 8th luncheon.

WIPO Daily Reports

from the June 11-15, 2007 Development Agenda meetings

The World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) is an international organization dedicated to promoting the use and protection of works of the human mind. These works -- intellectual property -- are expanding the bounds of science and technology and enriching the world of the arts. Through its work, WIPO plays an important role in enhancing the quality and enjoyment of life, as well as creating real wealth for nations. With headquarters in Geneva, Switzerland, WIPO is one of the 16 specialized agencies of the United Nations system of organizations. It administers 23 international treaties dealing with different aspects of intellectual property protection. The Organization counts 183 nations as member states.

State Bar welcomes 142 new members, U.W. Law School class sworn in at Capitol

Once again, 100 percent of the newly-admitted lawyers joined our State Bar.

This brings State Bar membership to 22,641.

Administrative Register effective June 15, 2007

The Revisor of Statutes Bureau has issued the first half of No. 618 [23 pp. pdf].

"Public" question is for jury

In a statutory fraud action, it is for the jury, rather than the court, to decide whether the plaintiff is a member of "the public."

Why a garden-variety contract dispute between two sophisticated corporations should be allowed to proceed via a consumer protection statute is another matter.

Petition for Amendment to Supreme Court Rule SCR 31.04

In the Matter of the Petition for Amendment to Supreme Court Rule SCR 31.04 Relating to Creation of a Comity Rule for Continuing Legal Education filed 06/18/07 by John E. Kosobucki, Director, Board of Bar Examiners 07-08

First-ever statewide pro se conference set

It's a conference on not of pro se litigants.

Court officials from across Wisconsin will gather in Wausau on June 19 to discuss the best methods for the state court system to provide services for people who represent themselves in court.

This Week in Liberal Judicial Activism: Week of June 18, 2007

Ed Whelan at Bench Memos.

Mr. Whelan was the featured speaker at our chapter's March 8th luncheon.

Political Tidbits June 13, 2007

The latest report

State Budget Update

Comments Filed on DNR Mercury Rule; Study Finds DNR’s Rule Doubles Costs

Legislative Committee Fails to Pass Compromise on DNR Interstate Pollution Rule

Missouri Supreme Court Rules Against City of St. Louis in Lead Paint Nuisance Case

Task Force Reviewing State IT Projects

Governor Doyle Announces Government Accountability Board Nominations

Wisconsin First in Overall Healthcare Quality

Mark Green Nominated for Ambassador Post

from The Hamilton Consulting Group.

Appellate Opinions Released June 14, 2007

The Wisconsin Supreme Court released the following opinion today:

Kocken v. Wisconsin Council 40 AFSCME (a sheriff's ability to hire and fire personnel to provide food service in the county jail is subject to legislative regulation and collective bargaining).

The Wisconsin Court of Appeals released these opinions today, recommending publication of the following:

Town of Madison v. County of Dane (county has a statutory duty to help town pay for construction of a bridge connecting two previously unconnected portions of a frontage road).

State v. Matthew E. Keyes (contractor who serves as prime contractor while simultaneously providing some labor and material as a subcontractor commits theft by contractor when it realizes profit from services and material provided as a subcontractor prior to paying all other subcontractors in full).

State v. Angela A. Keyes (same as Matthew E. Keyes).

Apology for a New Review

...Russell Kirk's explanation at the inauguration of Modern Age in 1957 ...

Appellate Opinions Released June 13, 2007

The Wisconsin Supreme Court released the following opinion today:

Buswell v. Tomah Area School District (open meeting notices must reasonably apprise the public of the subject matter to be addressed in the meeting).

The Wisconsin Court of Appeals released these opinions today, recommending the following for publication:

State v. Wery (rules regarding impeachment of a jury's verdict apply in a bifurcated trial when, in the second phase of a trial, a juror questions the verdict from the first phase of the trial that had already been accepted by the court).

Aul v. Golden Rule Insurance Company (health insurance riders).

Juanita Swedenburg, RIP

The hero of economic liberty who successfully challenged state bars on direct shipment of out-of-state wine to customers has died peacefully at her home in Virginia.

Charles Pickering

Harry Stein, in City Journal, reviews Judge Charles Pickering's insider account of his four-year long battle for appointment to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, and the shameless opposition to his nomination by Senate Democrats and their puppetmasters at People for the American Way.

Bar opposes AJR 56 - Indigent Legal Fees Assessment on Attorneys

Our State Bar has announced it opposes AJR56, a constitutional amendment

prohibiting the supreme court from assessing fees on attorneys, judges, or justices without statutory authority.

Public Interest Law Section supports AB 377 - Compassionate Care for Rape Victims

Our State Bar's Public Interest Law Section has announced it supports AB377, a bill

requiring a hospital to provide to a sexual assault victim information and, upon her request, emergency contraception and providing a penalty

It also supports companion bill SB129.

Bar supports SB 199 and AB 393 - Circuit Court Branches

Our State Bar has announced it supports companion bills SB199 and AB393

The State Bar of Wisconsin supports increases in Circuit Court branches when the Director of State Courts determines, after an analysis of caseload standards, that the Circuit Court needs a new branch - whenever: the county board of the county involved has adopted a resolution supporting the request; the weighted caseload statistics support the request; or the local bar association (if any) involved supports the request.

Bar opposes AB 336 - Substitution of Judges

Our State Bar has announced it opposes AB336, a bill

relating to: substitution of a judge in a criminal action.

Paris Hilton

Paris Hilton has done nothing wrong. A bac of 0.08% is what any objectively reasonable person would call sober. It is only a crime to drive with a bac of .08 because Congress has unconstitutionally made federal funding for transportation conditional on states' outlawing innocent conduct.

So Paris Hilton and countless others sit in jail for the "crime" of driving while sober.
Meanwhile, a rogue Congress flaunts the Constitution with impunity.

Appellate Opinions Released June 12, 2007

The Wisconsin Supreme Court released the following opinions today:

County of Milwaukee v. Williams (ordinance prohibiting pre-arranged taxi service at General Mitchell International Airport conflicted with state statute and so is invalid).

County of Milwaukee v. Hegney (same as Williams).

K&S Tool & Die Corp. v. Perfection Machinery Sales, Inc. (whether a corporation is a "member of the public" for purposes of the Deceptive Trade Practices Act (sec. 100.18) is a question of fact for the jury).

The Wisconsin Court of Appeals released these opinions today, recommending publication of the following:

Canadian National Railroad v. State of Wisconsin (Department of Transportation is not an "independent going concern" and is therefore entitled to sovereign immunity).

Reflections on a Year as State Bar President

Steve Levine in Government Lawyers News, newsletter of our State Bar's Government Lawyers Division

Hath not a government lawyer eyes? hath not a government lawyer hands, organs, dimensions, senses, affections, passions fed with the same food, hurt with the same weapons, subject to the same diseases, healed by the same means, warmed and cooled by the same winter and summer, as a private practitioner is?

July 19, 2007 Gregory Katsas, "Fighting A War: The Administration's Approach to the Detention, Interrogation, and Trial of Enemy Combatants"

Gregory Katsas, Principal Deputy Associate Attorney General of the United States, is schedulte speak on this topic at a Noon luncheon Thursday, July 19th at the Milwaukee Athletic Club, presented by the Milwaukee Lawyers Chapter.

Details to follow.

Adults are still children

Adults can still be "children" who can recover for loss of society and companionship when their parents die. Whether the statute could survive an equal protection challenge is another matter.

Reckless behavior is willful

Under the Fair Credit Reporting Act, "willful" includes not only knowing, but reckless behavior. The Supreme Court decision reverses the governing precedent in the Seventh Circuit

Appellate Opinions Released June 7, 2007

The Wisconsin Supreme Court did not release any opinions on this day.

The Wisconsin Court of Appeals released these opinions on this day, recommending the following for publication:

Smiljanic v. Niedermeyer (a broker's affidavit purporting to correct a deed that mistakenly omitted a lake access easement is incapable of transferring that property interest).

Appellate Opinions Released June 6, 2007

The Wisconsin Supreme Court did not release any opinions on this date.

The Wisconsin Court of Appeals released these opinions, recommending the following for publication:

State v. Sanders (suspected misdemeanant may flee from officers into his house and barricade himself inside a bedroom without triggering the "hot pursuit" doctrine, which allows a warrantless entry into the home).

State v. Christensen (recorded telephone conversations between inmate and sister were not subject to exclusion simply because the jail's telephone intercept system had the potential to record conversations between an inmate and his attorney).

Brusa v. Mercy Health System, Inc. (a child who has not been conceived as of the date of a negligent act cannot maintain a negligence action after birth based on that act).

Emmpak Foods, Inc. v. LIRC (worker's temporary total disability benefits may not be terminated even if he is dismissed from his position for good cause).

Appellate Opinions Released June 5, 2007

The Wisconsin Supreme Court did not release any opinions on this day.

The Wisconsin Court of Appeals released these opinions on this day, recommending the following for publication:

Village of Hobart v. Oneida Tribe of Indians of Wisconsin ("Interest in real property" does not include, for purposes of maintaining an action related to real property, a Village's regulatory power to condemn, tax, zone, or assess the property).

Herro v. Village of McFarland (village/town joint committee formed to consider boundary issues did not violate open meetings law by meeting in closed session).

This Week in Liberal Judicial Activism: Week of June 11, 2007

Ed Whelan at Bench Memos.

Mr. Whelan was the featured speaker at our chapter's March 8th luncheon.

SCOTUScast: Michael Carvin on 'Ledbetter v. Goodyear'

In Ledbetter v. Goodyear, the U.S. Supreme Court clarified lower court confusion concerning the statute of limitations in a salary discrimination claim. In this podcast, Jones Day partner Michael Carvin comments on the significance of the decision.

The Third Branch, Spring 2007

The latest issue of the Wisconsin Director of State Courts Office in html and "printable" [28 pp. pdf] versions.

In re amendment of SCR 32.01

Petition [3 pp. pdf] 07-07,

filed 06/05/07 by David A. Flesch, President, Wis. Assoc. of Judicial Court Commissioners and Patricia M. Crowe, President, Wis. Family Court Commissioners Association

Wisconsin Women's Law Journal, Fall 2006

Volume XXI, No.2

ARTICLES

Superstition-Based Injustice in Africa and the United States: The Use of Provocation as a Defense for Killing Witches and Homosexuals, by Jennifer Dumin

Title IX and High School Opportunities: Issues of Equity on and in the Court, by Suzanne E. Eckes

Family Values First When Federal Laws Collide: A Proposal to Create a Public Policy Exception to the Employment-At-Will Doctrine Based Upon Mandatory Parenting Duty, by Pamela Gershuny

Sexual Harassment at Home: Altering the Terms, Conditions and Privileges of Rental Housing for Section 8 Recipients, by Jill Maxwell

COMMENTS

Raging Hormones?: The Legal Obstacles and Policy Ramifications to Allowing Medical Monitoring Remedies in Hormone Replacement Therapy Suits, by Tamara Jeanne Dodge

Let's Talk About Sex Honestly: Why Federal Abstinence-Only-Until-Marriage Education Programs Discriminate Against Girls, Are Bad Public Policy, and Should Be Overturned, by Danielle LeClair

Individual Rights and Responsibilities Section opposes AB 260 - Employment Discrimination Against Certain Felons

Our State Bar's Individual Rights and Responsibilities Section has announced it opposes AB260, a bill

permitting an employer to refuse to employ or to terminate from employment an individual who has been convicted of a sex offense or a violent offense and preempting cities, villages, town, and counties from adopting provisions concerning employment discrimination based on arrest or conviction record that prohibit activity that is allowed under the state fair employment law.

Federal Preemption Law

Richard Epstein and Michael S. Greve have written what may be the definitive treatise on the law of preemption and federalism.

Marginal deterrence

The Seventh Circuit discusses the principle of marginal deterrence in sentencing, stating that the defendant misunderstands the principle, but without acknowledging a previous case in which it too misunderstood how it works.

Pay discrimination is not continuing violation

U.S. Supreme Court decision effectively overrules governing Seventh Circuit precedent.

The Verdict (WATL) Spring 2007

Volume 30, Number 1

Eight Ways to Defeat or Minimize ERISA Reimbursement Claims

Paralegal Resource: On the Quest for Victory: Practical Research for Paralegals

Practice Pointer: Voir Dire

This Week in Liberal Judicial Activism: Week of June 4, 2007

Ed Whelan at Bench Memos.

Mr. Whelan was the featured speaker at our chapter's