Articles Posted in

Published on:

By

The Oregonian’s In Portland article (11/15/07) by Edward Hershey, “Dog dispute spotlights law with no teeth,” gives one a fair idea why lawyers exist. The article also give one a fair idea why zoning laws, neighborhood associations, neighbor-law books, and perhaps even dogs, not to mention doggy-day care businesses, exist.

So when you hear anyone say, “it’s not rocket science” when talking about drafting laws or contracts, or interpreting them, step back slowly and walk away – and for heaven’s sake, don’t sign on their bottom lines.

Excerpt (full story here):

Published on:

By

Who said the law wasn’t fun? See the Fair Use Blog.

Excerpt from one post: Fantasy Baseball 2, Real Baseball Zero:

By Michael Kahn

The Eighth Circuit handed down its much awaited fantasy baseball decision in
CBC Distribution & Marketing, Inc. v. Major League Baseball Advanced Media, L.P., the appeal of the district court’s summary judgment in favor of CBC. CBC had brought a declaratory judgment case in St. Louis to establish its right to use — without license or compensation — the names and statistical information of real major league baseball players in its fantasy baseball products. The players had counterclaimed, maintaining that CBC’s fantasy baseball products violated their rights of publicity.”

Published on:

By

An article in the Oregonian on Wednesday (11/14/07), by Anne Saker, Workplace law eases plight of abused,” reports on rules just “issued” pursuant to a law passed in the 2007 legislative session. This law allows employees to take unpaid leave if they or their children have been victims of domestic abuse.

The article has a lot of information, but nowhere does it cite to the specific bill, the law, the codification of the law, or to the rule numbers (or exactly what is meant by “issued.”) So here you go:

* Senate Bill 946 (effective 5/25/07) (HTML and in PDF)

Published on:

By

As reported in the Oregonian’s In Portland 11/15/07 insert, in the Keeping It Weird column (which is eluding me online but read on for details), headline: “Did you hear what the semi-colon said, ” you will find an announcement of a fund-raising for Portland’s (Oregon) Independent Publishing Resource Center.

Guests are encouraged to come ‘dressed as text.’” Dressing up as punctuation seems popular, but other bookish, typesetting, or literary costumes will be seen, if not heard. (Aren’t most people blissfully quiet while they read?)

What: Elements of Style fundraiser
When: Saturday, November 17th, 8 p.m.
Where: Portland Art Center, 32 NW Fifth Ave. (details)
How much: $5-15
Music: Pete Krebs Trio
Contact: 503-236-3322

By
Posted in:
Published on:
Updated:
Published on:

By

The Library Law blog (not to be confused with the Law Librarian Blog 🙂 takes comments on this question (see full post and comments here):

“I wonder if you can help me locate information on the following scenario. I borrow a book from a library (public or school) which was published before 1923 and is therefore in the public domain. I would like to make a digital image copy of this book both for my own use and to distribute freely to others.

Assuming there’s no license or other relevant & explicit limitation on borrowers’ use of library materials, is it necessary to obtain permission from the library before doing this? Is it common for libraries to create such limitations regarding public domain works?”

Published on:

By

Oregon CLE is not a puzzle; it is a product of Hawk Education Services and, among other things, produces CLE (continuing legal education) courses that lawyers can use to fulfill their state MCLE requirements. But nowhere, that I have found yet, does it link back to the Oregon State Bar (OSB), which is the state’s bar licensing entity that, inter alia, sets the rules.

If you are a new lawyer, not yet completely familiar with Oregon MCLE rules, read them and learn.

I discovered this website by following a link from Tom Mighell’s Blawg of the Day Nov 1 post.

Published on:

By

Both the Oregonian AND the City of Portland got the name of the court wrong (or wonky) in this federal court case, City of Portland v. EPA. I expect this from one, but not from the other (and no I’m not going to say which).

There is no “District Court of Appeals” and the Oregonian story just weaseled out of precision (and accuracy) by referring to “the” Court of Appeals, of which there is no such thing. The definite article does not belong to any one U.S. Court of Appeals. There are 13 of them, so either say, “a” U.S. Court of Appeals or identify WHICH U.S. Court of Appeals you are referring to.

In this case, City of Portland v. EPA, it was the U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE D.C. CIRCUIT that issued this opinion (and you could know that by looking at page 1 of the case).

By
Posted in:
Published on:
Updated:
Contact Information