Category: 3-LawSometimeCommentary

On June 23, 2017, the Supreme Court decided Murr v. Wisconsin. In the 1960s the Murrs purchased two adjacent lots (Lots F and E), each over an acre in size, in St. Croix County, Wisconsin. In 1994 and 1995, the parents transferred the parcels to their children and the two lots were merged pursuant to St. Croix County’s code of ordinances, with local rules then barring their separate sale or development. A decade later the Murrs sought to sell Lot E in order to fund construction work on Lot F, but the St. Croix County Board of Adjustment denied a variance from the ordinance barring separate sale or development of the lots. The Murrs sued the state and county, claiming that the ordinance effected an uncompensated taking of their property and deprived them of “all, or practically all, of the use of Lot E because the lot cannot be sold or developed as a separate lot.” The circuit court disagreed and granted summary judgment to the state and county. The Court of Appeals of Wisconsin affirmed, concluding that the Murrs took the properties with constructive knowledge of the resulting restrictions and had not suffered a loss in value of more than 10%. The Wisconsin Supreme Court denied further review. -- The question before the United States Supreme Court was whether, in a regulatory taking case, the “parcel as a whole” concept as described in Penn Central Transportation Company v. City of New York establishes a rule that two legally distinct but commonly owned contiguous parcels must be combined for takings analysis purposes. -- By a vote of 5-3, the Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the Court of Appeals of Wisconsin. In an opinion by Justice Kennedy, the Supreme Court held that the Wisconsin court was correct to analyze the Murrs’ lots as a single unit and that no compensable taking had occurred. Justice Kennedy’s majority opinion was joined by Justices Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan. Chief Justice Roberts filed a dissenting opinion, in which Justices Thomas and Alito joined. Justice Thomas filed a dissenting opinion. Justice Gorsuch took no part in the consideration or decision of this case. -- To discuss the case, we have James S. Burling, who is Vice President of Litigation, Pacific Legal Foundation.

For today's show, we take a deep dive into the law of contracts, featuring the "parol evidence" rule. First, however, we answer a question from special listener Lydia S. who wants to know all about Blac Chyna, Rob Kardashian, and "revenge porn."  YOU asked for it! In the main segment, Andrew and Thomas discuss what you can and can't do to dispute a written contract. Next, Garry Myers asks us about why law firms are all structured as partnerships.  Again, the answer might surprise you!. Finally, we end with the answer to Thomas Take the Bar Exam Question #32 regarding 42 U.S.C. § 1983.  Listen and find out if Thomas makes it back to .500!   And don't forget to play along by following our Twitter feed (@Openargs) and/or our Facebook Page and quoting the Tweet or Facebook Post that announces this episode along with your guess and reason(s)! Recent Appearances: None!  Have us on your show! Show Notes & Links

1. You can check out California's "revenge porn" law,  Penal Code - PEN § 647(j)(4), by clicking here.
2. And this is the Los Angeles Times article detailing Kamala Harris's first successful prosecution under the law back when she was California's Attorney General.

Support us on Patreon at:  patreon.com/law Follow us on Twitter:  @Openargs Facebook:  https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ And email us at openarguments@gmail.com  

On November 29, 2016, the Supreme Court decided Bravo-Fernandez v. United States. A jury convicted petitioners Juan Bravo-Fernandez and Hector Martínez-Maldonado of bribery in violation of 18 U. S. C. §666 but acquitted them of conspiring to violate §666 and traveling in interstate commerce to violate §666. The jury’s verdicts were therefore irreconcilably inconsistent, and the petitioners’ convictions were later vacated on appeal because of error in the judge’s instructions unrelated to this inconsistency. On remand, Bravo and Martínez moved for judgments of acquittal on the standalone §666 charg­es, arguing that the issue-preclusion component of the Double Jeopardy Clause barred the Government from retrying them on those charges. The District Court denied the motions, and the First Circuit affirmed. -- The question before the Supreme Court was whether the eventual invalidation of petitioners’ §666 convictions undermined the United States v. Powell instruction that issue preclusion does not apply when the same jury returns logically inconsistent verdicts. -- By a vote of 8-0, the Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the First Circuit. In an opinion by Justice Ginsburg, the Court held that the issue-preclusion component of the double jeopardy clause, which bars a second contest of an issue of fact or law raised and necessarily resolved by a prior judgment, does not bar the government from retrying defendants after a jury has returned irreconcilably inconsistent verdicts of conviction and acquittal and the convictions are later vacated for legal error unrelated to the inconsistency. Justice Thomas filed a concurring opinion. -- And now, to discuss the case, we have Paul Crane, who is Assistant Professor of Law at the University of Richmond School of Law.

On May 30, 2017, the Supreme Court decided Impression Products, Inc. v. Lexmark International, Inc. Lexmark International, Inc. (Lexmark), which owns many patents for its printer toner cartridges, allows customers to buy its cartridges through a “Return Program,” which is administered under a combination single-use patent and contract license. Customers purchasing cartridges through the Return Program are given a discount in exchange for agreeing to use each cartridge once before returning it to Lexmark. All of the domestically-sold cartridges at issue here and some of those sold abroad were subject to the Return Program. Impression Products, Inc. (Impression) acquired some Lexmark cartridges abroad--after a third party physically changed the cartridges to enable their re-use--in order to resell them in the United States. Lexmark then sued, alleging that Impression had infringed on Lexmark’s patents because Impression acted without authorization from Lexmark to resell and reuse the cartridges. Impression contended that its resale of the cartridges was not an infringement because Lexmark, in transferring the title by selling the cartridges initially, granted the requisite authority. The district court granted Impression’s motion to dismiss as it related to the domestically sold cartridges but denied it as to the foreign-sold cartridges. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed the district court’s judgment as to the domestically sold cartridges but affirmed dismissal regarding the cartridges sold abroad. -- There were two questions before the Supreme Court: (1) whether a “conditional sale” that transfers title to the patented item while specifying post-sale restrictions on the article's use or resale avoids application of the patent-exhaustion doctrine and therefore permits the enforcement of such post-sale restrictions through the patent law’s infringement remedy; and (2) whether, in light of this court’s holding in Kirtsaeng v. John Wiley & Sons, Inc. that the common-law doctrine barring restraints on alienation that is the basis of exhaustion doctrine “makes no geographical distinctions,” a sale of a patented article – authorized by the U.S. patentee – that takes place outside the United States exhausts the U.S. patent rights in that article. -- By a vote of 7-1, the Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the Federal Circuit and remanded the case. In an opinion by Chief Justice Roberts, the Court held that (1) Lexmark exhausted its patent rights in toner cartridges sold in the United States through its "Return Program"; and (2) Lexmark cannot sue Impression Products for patent infringement with respect to cartridges Lexmark sold abroad, which Impression Products acquired from purchasers and imported into the United States, because an authorized sale outside the United States, just as one within the United States, exhausts all rights under the Patent Act. The Chief Justice’s majority opinion was joined by Justices Kennedy, Thomas, Breyer, Alito, Sotomayor, and Kagan. Justice Ginsburg filed an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part. Justice Gorsuch took no part in the consideration or decision of the case. -- And now, to discuss the case, we have Adam Mossoff, who is Professor of Law and Co-Director of Academic Programs and Senior Scholar of CPIP, Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason University.

On June 12, 2017, the Supreme Court decided Microsoft Corp. v. Baker. Plaintiffs brought a class action lawsuit against Microsoft Corporation (Microsoft) alleging that, during gameplay on the Xbox 360 video game console, discs would come loose and get scratched by the internal components of the console, sustaining damage that then rendered them unplayable. The district court, deferring to an earlier denial of class certification entered by another district court dealing with a similar putative class, entered a stipulated dismissal and order striking class allegations. Despite the dismissal being the product of a stipulation--that is, an agreement by the parties--the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit determined that the parties remained sufficiently adverse for the dismissal to constitute a final appealable order. The Ninth Circuit, therefore, concluded it had appellate jurisdiction over the case. Reaching the merits, that Court held that the district court had abused its discretion, and therefore reversed the stipulated dismissal and order striking class allegations, and remanded the case. -- The question before the Supreme Court was whether a federal court of appeals has jurisdiction to review an order denying class certification after the named plaintiffs voluntarily dismiss their claims with prejudice. -- By a vote of 8-0, the Court reversed the decision of the Ninth Circuit and remanded the case. In an opinion by Justice Ginsburg, the Court held that Federal courts of appeals lack jurisdiction under 28 U. S. C. §1291 to review an order denying class certification (or, as in this case, an order striking class allegations) after the named plaintiffs have voluntarily dismissed their claims with prejudice. Justice Ginsburg’s majority opinion was joined by Justices Kennedy, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan. Justice Thomas filed an opinion concurring in the judgment, in which the Chief Justice and Justice Alito joined. Justice Gorsuch took no part in the consideration or decision of the case. -- To discuss the case, we have Theodore H. Frank, who is Senior Attorney and Director of the Center for Class Action Fairness at the Competitive Enterprise Institute.

In today's episode, we discuss the recent controversy over Donald Trump, Jr.'s contact with Russian officials during the 2016 election. We begin, however, with a follow-up from Dave (and others) who asked us about doxxing. In our main segment, the guys break the law of conspiracy to discuss whether Donald Trump Jr.'s conduct is potentially criminal.  (Spoiler:  Yes.) Next, fan favorite segment "Are You A Cop?" returns with a question about taxation without representation. Finally, we end with an all-new Thomas Takes the Bar Exam Question #32 about Section 1983 claims and acting under "color of law."  Remember that you can play along with #TTTBE by retweeting our episode Tweet along with your guess.  We'll release the answer on next Tuesday's episode along with our favorite entry! Recent Appearances None!  But you can come join the guys at the Inciting Incident 100th Episode Live Spectacular in Carlisle, PA on July 14, 2017!  Get your tickets now! Show Notes & Links

1. You can read Sarah Jeong's excellent article, "Stop Diluting the Defintion of Dox," here.
2. This is 18 U.S. Code § 371, the federal conspiracy statute.
3. And here is a link to the Cockrum, Comer & Schoenberg complaint.

Support us on Patreon at:  patreon.com/law Follow us on Twitter:  @Openargs Facebook:  https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ And email us at openarguments@gmail.com  

On June 5, 2017, the Supreme Court decided Advocate Health Care Network v. Stapleton, which is consolidated with Saint Peter’s Healthcare System v. Kaplan, and Dignity Health v. Rollins. The Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) requires that employee retirement plans contain certain safeguards, but exempts “church plan[s]” from these requirements. Under 29 U.S.C. 1002(33)(A), the term “church plan” means “a plan established and maintained… by a church or by a convention or association of churches which is exempt from tax….” After a controversy involving an Internal Revenue Service determination that the church plan exemption did not encompass pension plans established and maintained by two orders of Catholic sisters for the employees of their hospitals, Congress amended the statute to add subsection (C), which provides: “A plan established and maintained for its employees (or their beneficiaries) by a church or by a convention or association of churches includes a plan maintained by an organization, whether a civil law corporation or otherwise, the principal purpose or function of which is the administration or funding of a plan or program for the provision of retirement benefits or welfare benefits, or both, for the employees of a church or a convention or association of churches, if such organization is controlled by or associated with a church or a convention or association of churches.” -- Plaintiffs in this case are a group of employees who work for church-affiliated non-profits. Plaintiffs sued the non-profits, alleging that their retirement plans are subject to ERISA and that by failing to adhere to ERISA’s requirements the non-profits have breached their respective fiduciary duties. Defendants moved for summary judgment, but the district court denied the motions because it determined that a plan established and maintained by a church-affiliated organization was not a church plan within the meaning of the statutory language. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed. -- By a vote of 8-0, the Court reversed the judgment of the Seventh Circuit. In an opinion by Justice Kagan, the Court held that under ERISA, a defined-benefit pension plan maintained by a principal-purpose organization -- one controlled by or associated with a church for the administration or funding of a plan for the church's employees -- qualifies as a "church plan," regardless of who established it. All members joined her opinion except for Justice Gorsuch, who took no part in the consideration or decision of the case. Justice Sotomayor filed a concurring opinion. -- To discuss the case, we have Eric Baxter who is Senior Counsel at The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty.

For today's show, we dive deeper into the Supreme Court's recent decision in Trinity Lutheran v. Comer with guest lawyer Andrew Seidel from the Freedom From Religion Foundation. First, however, we answer a question from Patron Christopher Arguin regarding cross-examination that was inspired by TTTBE #30. In the main segment, Andrew and Andrew continue to discuss church-state separation and the First Amendment. Next, our friend Seth Barrett Tillman provides us with an update on the CREW v. Trump lawsuit regarding emoluments. Finally, we end with the answer to Thomas Take the Bar Exam Question #31 regarding the Statute of Frauds.  Listen and find out if Thomas's improbable one-question winning streak will continue -- and don't forget to play along by following our Twitter feed (@Openargs) and/or our Facebook Page and quoting the Tweet or Facebook Post that announces this episode along with your guess and reason(s)! Recent Appearances None!  But this is your last chance to join the guys at the Inciting Incident 100th Episode Live Spectacular in Carlisle, PA on July 14, 2017!  Get your tickets now! Show Notes & Links

1. We first spoke with Andrew Seidel regarding Trinity Lutheran during Episode 82.
2. Here is a link to the Trinity Lutheran v. Comer decision.
3. We first discussed Trinity Lutheran during our three-part "You Be The Supreme Court" series; part 1 (Episode 14) is available here, part 2 is available here, and part 3 is available here.
4. This is the letter that the Missouri Attorney General sent indicating that, post-election, Missouri would change its policy.
5. Finally, please check out Andrew Seidel's great work at the Freedom From Religion Foundation.

Support us on Patreon at:  patreon.com/law Follow us on Twitter:  @Openargs Facebook:  https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ And email us at openarguments@gmail.com  

In today's episode, we discuss the recent controversy over CNN's handling of a Redditor who posted a Trump meme online.  Is this really "blackmail" by CNN? We begin, however, with a follow-up from Patron Joerg regarding UK laws on personal jurisdiction/long-arm and defamation.  Could Maajid Nawaz (whose potential lawsuit we discussed in Episode #83) really file against the SPLC in the UK after all? In our main segment, the guys break down CNN's conduct and see if it qualifies as blackmail, extortion, conspiracy to deprive an individual of his Constitutional rights, or any other criminal behavior. Next, by great popular demand, we tackle Bob Murray's lawsuit against John Oliver in connection with his report on "Last Week Tonight."  You won't be surprised by our evaluation of the merits, but you will enjoy reading the Complaint! Finally, we end with an all-new Thomas Takes the Bar Exam Question #31 about the Statute of Frauds.  Remember that you can play along with #TTTBE by retweeting our episode Tweet along with your guess.  We'll release the answer on next Tuesday's episode along with our favorite entry! Recent Appearances None!  But you can come join the guys at the Inciting Incident 100th Episode Live Spectacular in Carlisle, PA on July 14, 2017!  Get your tickets now! Show Notes & Links

1. Here is a link to the 2013 UK Defamation Act.
2. This is the 2010 SPEECH Act,  28 U.S.C. § 4102.
3. And here is the SPLC's report on Maajid Nawaz labelling him an "anti-Muslim extremist.".
4. This is 18 U.S.C. § 873, the federal blackmail statute.
5. Here is a link to an informative Washington Post article about the CNN/HanAssholeSolo debacle.
6. And here is a link to the Ben Shapiro opinion piece in the National Review.
7. This is a link to the lawsuit filed by Murray against Oliver, which is a delightful read.
8. This link contains the original Oliver segment about Murray, which is definitely worth watching.

Support us on Patreon at:  patreon.com/law Follow us on Twitter:  @Openargs Facebook:  https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ And email us at openarguments@gmail.com  

In this special holiday episode, Andrew and Thomas talk about fireworks law across the U.S.  Where can you go for a cherry-bombin' good time?  Listen and find out! First, however, we take a look at Maajid Nawaz's threatened lawsuit against the SPLC.  In the main segment, Andrew and Thomas figure out the best place to set off bottle rockets.  And after that, Andrew tackles another question from the patron-only Q&A mailbag. Finally, we end with the answer to Thomas (and Andrew Seidel) Take the Bar Exam Question #30 regarding cross-examination.  Will Thomas and the practicing lawyer get it wrong?   Listen and find out, and don't forget to play along by following our Twitter feed (@Openargs) and/or our Facebook Page and quoting the Tweet or Facebook Post that announces this episode along with your guess and reason(s)! Recent Appearances Andrew was a guest on Episode 14 of Habeas Humor, cracking lawyer-themed "yo mama" jokes.  Check it out! Show Notes & Links

1. This is the SPLC's report on Maajid Nawaz labelling him an "anti-Muslim extremist."

Support us on Patreon at:  patreon.com/law Follow us on Twitter:  @Openargs Facebook:  https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ And email us at openarguments@gmail.com