This blog post is written primarily for the new appellate court brief writer, either the new lawyer or the pro se litigant.
Not all materials on briefs writing are online (surprise, surprise), so be prepared to visit an Oregon law library:
1) OSB “Appeal and Review” (loose leaf) (from the Oregon State Bar or an Oregon law library)
2) Various CLE course materials on the Oregon appeals process (titles vary from law library to law library depending on collection size and purchasing decisions).
Previous Bites:
Oregon Constitution in Small Bites: Bite #1 and Bite #2 (Bill of Rights, 1-6)
Oregon Constitution in Small Bites: Bite #3 (Bill of Rights, 7-12)
Oregon Constitution in Small Bites: #4 (Bill of Rights, 13-20)
Oregon Constitution in Small Bites: #5 (Bill of Rights, 21-30)
Oregon Constitution in Small Bites: #6 (Bill of Rights, 32-39)
Oregon Constitution in Small Bites #7: Bill of Rights, 40-42)
Today: Oregon Constitution in Small Bites: Bite #8 (Bill of Rights, 43-45):
43. Rights of victim and public to protection from accused person during criminal proceedings; denial of pretrial release
44. Term of imprisonment imposed by court to be fully served; exceptions
45. Person convicted of certain crimes not eligible to serve as juror on grand jury or trial jury in criminal case
I thought some of my readers might be interested in this recent post on AALL’s Washington Blawg about Saturday’s New York Times article on the loss of federal online information:
In Digital Age, Federal Files Blip Into Oblivion, by Robert Pear, published: September 12, 2008
“Robert Pear of The New York Times succinctly describes the enormous challenges of preserving the vast array of federal online government information in an article published on September 13, 2008, entitled, “In Digital Age, Federal Files Blip into Oblivion.” The article captures a key concern raised by AALL in a letter to members of Congress last April about the short-sighted and disappointing decision of the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) not to harvest agency Web sites at the end of this administration….”(full blog post, linking to NYT article).
A complete answer to this question depends on where you live. IF you are in a city with a federal court library or, lucky you, in a city where a Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals Library is located, you may have a few other options.
You may also have access to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (official name) briefs that are available on Westlaw or Lexis.
In time the briefs may appear on PACER (and a few may be there now, but I’ve not ever seen one there myself).
On Wednesday, September 17th, 2008: Get your free pocket U.S. Constitution (3 different selection to choose from!) at Laura the Law Librarian’s Constitution Day celebration. (Yes, once again I’ll be handing out pocket U.S. Constitutions at the Washington County Courthouse, from Noon to 1 p.m.)
(Bring a friend and stay in Hillsboro for lunch. If you haven’t visited downtown Hillsboro recently, you’re in for a treat. Great food, beautiful walks (see more Metro Walks here), great Law Library (!), and much more.)
Once again, I stand [never] alone up against the forces of, uh, Constitution-less anarchy maybe? But as you’ve probably noticed, it’s not enough to HAVE a Constitution, one must be governed by it (not unlike that Seinfeld car rental reservation, here and here, where it wasn’t enough to HAVE the reservation; one had to HOLD the reservation …. 🙂
“Applying Oregon law, a 9th Circuit panel has held that the combination of substantial disparity in bargaining power and unreasonably favorable terms to the more powerful party renders a mandatory arbitration agreement unconscionable.” (Link to full post)
I last posted about Oregon arbitration law here.
For you non-lawyers out there, yes this sometimes happens. Lawyers really do learn useful things in law school and know things mere mortals don’t! (But not everything, so it doesn’t hurt to do your homework.)
From the OSB Litigation Section Newsletter (and they put it online – thank you!), July 2008 issue, this article by Caroline Harris Crowne & Julia E. Markley: “Federal Arbitration Act Preempts Oregon’s Legislature’s 2007 Amendement to Oregon Arbitration Act.”
“… In 2007, the Oregon legislature imposed a restriction on certain kinds of arbitration agreements that flies in the face of U.S. Supreme Court case law. ORS 36.620(5), part of Oregon’s version of the Revised Uniform Arbitration Act (“OUAA”), now requires that, in order for an arbitration agreement between an employer and employee to be valid, either the employer must give the employee two weeks’ notice before the first day of employment that an arbitration agreement is required as a condition of employment or the arbitration agreement must be entered into upon a “subsequent bona fide advancement” of the employee….” (full article from here, p. 4)
Online Research Resources:
For those who read Susan Nielsen’s column, The Other Gun Ruling, in the Sunday, July 06, 2008, Oregonian, and want to read the full case from the U.S. Supreme Court, the opinion is here, Giles v. California (docket number: 07-6053, decided June 25, 2008).
Excerpt from Nielson’s column:
“The Supreme Court just ruled in favor of a man who shot and killed his ex-girlfriend. The conservative majority did so by relying heavily on case law from centuries ago, when domestic violence was considered more of a private hobby than a crime.
Law Librarian Blog links us to this story about the Legal Information Institute’s, U.S. Code (U.S.C.), including the RSS feed for official updates to the U.S.C.
Not everyone will find this exciting, but law librarians do!
Oregon Legal Research Blog