Articles Posted in April, 2007

Vote for the Oddest Law Book Title. Other odd book titles here and here.

* Jurisprurient: first appearance of the word in 98 Harvard Law Rev. 1109, 1210 (1985)?

The current issue of Willamette Law Review, volume 43, no. 2, 2007, contains a collection of articles from the Unparallel Justice: The Legacy of Hans Linde symposium. The issue isn’t online at their web site yet, but is available in print and online at law libraries and many public libraries through their subscription databases or from reference staff.

Interesting post at Library Law, re: Schwartz v. Berkeley Historical Society

Excerpt: “I believe that plaintiff and his counsel were aware that our insurance-funded counsel would defend us so long as the law suit was for damages. By suing us in federal court seeking declaratory relief and costs of the suit and counsel, plaintiff knew that BHS would be stranded without insurance-paid counsel.”

Public Record or Public Domain doesn’t always mean Free, for anyone, which confuses many. Librarians, and public servants, share willingly and freely when possible, but someone had or has to pay for the service. Publishers don’t give away books or databases without charging, computers don’t appear out of thin air, nor are they maintained without cost, scanners, indexers, and web designers have a right to be paid for their expertise and labor. Not every service is funded with taxpayer money. We could go on ….

Need an extension of time to file your tax return? Always go to the source, in this case the IRS, for information. Ignorantia juris non excusat.

A Wisconsin Law Journal article, April 9, 2007, “Big Frauds Start Small.” Ain’t that the truth!

Linked to via SC Employment Law Blog, who is Blawg Review #104 this week. (Blawg Review home, here.)

1) Crime in the library, the lighter side (public librarians laughing darkly)

2) People with Mental Illnesses in the Library (public librarians not laughing, darkly or otherwise)

3) Library Law (lawyers and others who care about libraries, people, and law)

The Construction Claims Task Force Report to the 74th Oregon Legislature (also available here) has been published. The Construction Claims Task Force:

“The Construction Claims Task Force was created by the Oregon Legislature to address increasing construction claims and rising contractor liability insurance premiums. The task force was directed to study and evaluate the causes and extent of construction defects in Oregon, the need for consumer protection and the availability and affordability of liability insurance for contractors. The task force has prepared a Report to the 74th Oregon Legislature with recommendations for improving the construction environment in Oregon.”

The April 2007 issue of the Oregon State Bar Bulletin story by Melody Finnemore, “Uncharted Waters,” here. Excerpt:

“As a law student, Sam Kauffman never imagined he would see the U.S. government imprison human beings indefinitely while denying them access to a court of law to challenge their imprisonment.

Now, 14 years later, as one of several Portland attorneys representing detainees at the U.S. military base in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, Kauffman knows firsthand what it’s like to try to provide legal representation for someone who has been stripped of that basic constitutional right.

We get used to our court system and take it for granted that there are rules we abide by,” says Kauffman, who is of counsel with Garvey Schubert Barer. “The federal judges who are handling these cases seem powerless to do anything, and that’s unusual. Usually they say, ‘This is what’s going to happen’ and it happens.”

In a challenge to the validity Article VII (Amended) of the Oregon Constitution, the Oregon Supreme Court decided that the Court of Appeals is indeed valid. Opinion in here, Carey v. Lincoln Loan Company (S53242):

Judge Ballmer:

“Is the Court of Appeals lawfully constituted? Defendant Lincoln Loan Co. argues that it is not, because — in defendant’s view — the provision of the Oregon Constitution that purports to authorize the legislature to establish courts was improperly adopted in 1910. It therefore follows — again, in defendant’s view — that, when the legislature created the Court of Appeals by statute in 1969, it had no authority to do so. For that reason, defendant asserts, the Court of Appeals decision in this case, which reversed a trial court judgment in favor of defendant, is invalid and must be vacated. The Court of Appeals rejected defendant’s argument that that court was improperly established and ruled against defendant on the merits. For the reasons set out below, we affirm the decision of the Court of Appeals.”