Oregon Legal Research Blog

I haven’t reminded you recently about Jim Calloway’s blog, which is fun and full of useful information. Jim recently blogged about business cards, though after reading the post I have to admit I flashed on what Harry Potter’s business card would look like if he had one – animal, vegetable, mineral, or magical?

Oregon isn’t the only state with its courthouses on the verge of collapse (see page 32 of the report) (re “collapse”: only a mild exaggeration if the judges and lawyers are to be believed, and they may very well be right – personally, I’m a little nervous inside some of the state’s courthouses). Other states have the same problem, e.g. here and here and here (but not here 🙂
California recently came up with one solution to the same problem within their borders. (You can track some of their progress here and here. I’m sure there are other views, such as here in Milt Polizcer’s June 5th column:

“It never fails to astonish me that whenever there’s a difficult problem facing the judicial system in California, the people in charge fail to do the obvious thing: ask me for help.

I almost always have the answer.

And the answer I’d like to offer the powers that be in the state judiciary is SELL!

Not that all Presidents have or had anything great to say, but some did:

American Presidency Project (selected documents: 1789 – present)

Public Papers of the Presidents of the United States (1991 to present)

Whole Foods and Wild Oats Merger story at Reuters via Yahoo, here. Excerpt:

“Whole Foods, the largest natural and organic grocer, announced plans to buy Wild Oats in February, after coming under increased pressure from mainstream grocers that were selling more organic, natural and prepared fare.

In May, Whole Foods said that staff members of the Federal Trade Commission had voiced concerns over the anti-competitive impact of the planned acquisition.”

One of my favorite attorneys emailed me from the hospital to ask if she could renew some books that were checked out – her baby was about to be born.

Am I so tough on my library’s lawyers that they feel the need to ask for renewals even when they are in labor?

Today is a Variation on The Flux sort of day. On the train this morning, a woman turned to me and asked, “are you the Oregon Legal Research blogger?” Now the odds of this happening must be close to zero. I live in one county of more than half a million people and commute 1.5 hours to another county of half-a million. I don’t even take the same route everyday. And I’m not sure how much I really look like my picture, but apparently more than I imagined.

Then, a little later in the morning, I answered the phone and a local detective was on the line with a question. I couldn’t answer his question, but I had one for him. Was he the detective who was written up in the paper a couple of weeks ago? When I saw the story I thought he’d be perfect for our cable-access program on juvenile law, but was too shy (!) or too whatever to phone to ask if he was free that night (we had to scramble for a last-minute speaker after the scheduled one had to cancel). But I tucked his name away in the recesses of my memory. And here he was on the phone. Who says you sometimes can’t just sit back and wait for someone to phone you – at least on a Flux Day. (He also has the most wonderful tattoos too – maybe it’s coming from a long line of artists, but tattoos are art to me and can be quite beautiful. I know, I know, but life is short.) And then a lawyer came it to ask a question I would not have been able to answer but for the fact that our last minute guest on the cable-access legal program last week talked specifically about the same topic.

Do you want to know about The Flux (but not this flux). The Flux, as I call it for reasons that will become clear in a moment, is pretty much a string of concurrent coincidences. Let’s say that out of nowhere, 3 books are simultaneously published on Queen Victoria’s third cousin – this is pretty much the example Willie Garvin gives of The Flux (it’s kinda scary what detail you can find online now) and it sums it up quite nicely. A few years ago there was a Philip Larkin Flux. You couldn’t trip over a curb, turn on the radio, open a magazine in a coffee shop or the dentist’s office, without falling smack into another story about Larkin. Very weird, especially when this went on for about a year. How often do you hear about Philip Larkin – at least in my line of work?

Robert Ambrogi (and also Future Lawyer ) posts about this Intestacy Calculator. From Bob’s post: The site also includes an interactive summary of state laws. It shows you which states apply certain types of laws, such as giving community property to a surviving spouse. Another feature of the site is a federal estate tax calculator.”

Kurt Nilson, the creator of the calculator, is an attorney in Pennsylvania.

Interesting and useful web site, especially if it moves you to get a will in place. But please, the usual disclaimers apply. If you want a will that says what you want it to say, do some research and talk to a lawyer. No two people are alike (think snowflakes) and nowhere is this more true than when it comes to each person’s legal situation.

While reading the next opinion the Oregon Supreme Court decided on Friday, State v. Bray, about an inmate who “worked at the call center” and was now a defendant in a child sex abuse case, I wondered about that “call center.” There are lots, and lots, of reasons to make sure prison inmates receive education and training while in prison. The Oregon Corrections Enterprises (OCE) plays a role in the endeavor, and manages the call center mentioned in State v. Bray. The OCE mission: To provide public safety by providing inmates with meaningful work experience in a self-sustaining organization.

The Saturday Oregonian (6/2/07) ran a story (byline Anne Saker), “Grand jury to see IDs, records in abuse case,” on the latest developments in the case against David O. Burleson. I blogged about this case on March 4th. The Oregon Supreme Court decided on Friday, 6/1/07, in State v. Burleson (SC S054377):

“The trial court, while correctly denying the state’s motion for contempt, should have granted the state’s motion to compel. The trial court itself concluded that the evidence sought was relevant and not privileged. The grand jury is entitled to evidence that “might be given on the trial of the person charged with the crime in question.” ORS 132.320(1). As a matter of diligence, the prosecutor must identify victims and interview them about facts likely to lead to the production of admissible evidence. The identity of victims of crime is the most basic kind of evidence given at trial. Accordingly, we issue a peremptory writ ordering the circuit court to grant the state’s motion to compel production of full and unredacted medical records.”