Oregon Government Ethics: Oregon Law Commission doesn’t yet have the minutes of the 11/15/06 government ethics panel meeting up at their web site, but Oregonian has an editorial on the subject today, 11/17/06, and so does the Salem Statesman Journal.
Published on:
You Gotta Love Lawyers: Today’s (11/17/06) Portland Tribune has a story (not the Randolph one, but you can read that too or Phil Sanford who is always worth reading and almost always makes me laugh), “FBI Accused of Misconduct in Stolen Goods Sting.” Read it here or link to it from their home page. Yesterday’s , “Beware of Legal Advice From Friends” was better, but this one is good too.
Published on:
More about Forfeiture, Armatta, and Measure 3: The OSB Constitutional Law Section has an excellent OrCon Law blog, which I’ve mentioned before, but it bears repeating. Their recent posting on the LINT v. Kitzhaber case is here.
Published on:
Web Site Redesign: Please be patient. We’re only able to work on this in fits and spurts (see Blorking post), and right now, are only half-way to where we want to be. Comments are welcome.
Published on:
Oregon Forfeiture Law: I know “everyone” says that they spend 15 minutes reading the Oregonian and about the same with the OSB Bulletin, but you miss an awful lot if that is all the time you give either publication. I suppose that is why I link to these publications here even though One Would Think everyone would have read the highlighted stories. So here we go: The latest issue of the OSB Bulletin, which can be read for no charge at the OSB web site (current issue link is at the home page), has at least two stories (I’ve not finished reading the issue yet) worth your time, one for information and the other for pleasure. One is about Oregon’s forfeiture laws (and the October 19th Supreme Court ruling upholding Measure 3) and the other is footnotes. Every lawyer has something to say, at great length, about footnotes, but this latest article will still make you laugh.
Today’s Oregonian story I linked to earlier today (titled, Beware of Legal Advice From Friends) (I’ll fix the perm link soon).
Published on:
Beware of Legal Advice from Friends: Today’s (Metro section, 11/16/06) Oregonian had a, um, interesting story about a defendant who listened to his “friends” who advised him to use the UCC to defend himself in his attempted aggravated murder trial. Does one laugh or cry? I suppose there was a time when people laughed at lawyers using RICO statutes, and they certainly used to laugh at lawyers who filed consumer law class actions against tobacco companies, so why not … oh, never mind.
Published on:
FTC and Early Supreme Court Decision Citation Table: Two links of note from yesterday’s (11/15/06) beSpacific (and there are always links of note at beSpacific), 1) FTC now has online cases back to 1969 and a librarian at the U.S. Supreme Court has compiled a table of decision dates for early U.S. Supreme Court decisions. She gathered the information from handwritten Engrossed Minutes, available at the National Archives (and on microfilm) – a heroic task indeed.
Published on:
More Oregon Condo Law: Today’s (Wed, 11/15/06) Oregonian has a front page story by Dylan Rivera on tax breaks for condo builders and owners. An Oregon case and statute are mentioned, but not cited to (this is not a fatal flaw as the reporter does provide just enough information to locate the supporting documents – but don’t get me started on newspaper reporters who write about the law). The Oregon Tax Court case is North Harbour Corp vs. Department of Revenue, 16 OTR 91 (2002) and the statute is ORS 307.330.
Published on:
Condo Law and the Dance of Bloggers:
See more Condo Law Resources over at Shlep for more (thank you David!).
The Dance of Bloggers: Yes, as you’ve noticed, Bloggers do cite to one another, which is a good thing. It’s oddly efficient (or at least it seems that way to me) and keeps us connected, unless we start citing to each other exclusively – but I suspect there’s small likelihood of that happening. Speaking of which (so you can see how *my* brain works!), I recently gave to a young lawyer my “don’t let someone else (meaning Westlaw and Lexis in that instance) do your research for you” talk (well, lecture really :-). You need to dig in to the research, when it matters, from different angles, and not just let the digests or the databases do it for you, nor other people, though of course you use all these tools – just don’t use only one of them. There was a wonderful Stanford Law Review article written years ago by Richard Delgado and Jean Stefancic, “Why do we tell the same stories? Law reform, critical librarianship, and the triple helix dilemma,” (42 Stanford Law Rev 207 (1989). It’s a lot longer than my lecture on the “who’s doing your research for you,” but much more interesting and provocative.
Published on:
Employment Law: I don’t know if it’s the season, but we’ve been getting a lot of employment law questions lately – or at least more than usual. I was looking at the BOLI site and thought to remind you to look there too. There is an order form for the Wage and Hour Laws Handbook, information about the December conference, and more.