Your shopping Cart is currently Empty
How to Effectively Represent a Client Looking to Complete a 1031 Tax Deferred Exchange:
§1031 tax-deferred exchanges have become an increasingly important part of real estate transactions. An exchange provides for tremendous tax savings by allowing owners of real property to defer the capital gains normally due upon the sale of their property. This course will provide legal professionals with the knowledge needed to effectively represent the needs of their clients who are contemplating an I.R.C. §1031 tax deferred exchange.
A Mini Trial at Trial - Alternative Dispute Resolution. Attorney Jeffrey B. Gold discusses an innovative alternative dispute resolution technique that can be used by trial attorneys even after a trial has begun.
In this lecture, one of England's most prominent criminal lawyers, Jonathan Goldberg QC, deals in detail with the principles of advocacy in modern legal practice. Jonathan Goldberg is an "Advocate's Advocate", an experienced and distinguished Queen's Counsel who has appeared in many famous trials. In this unique project, recorded in his chambers in London, he draws upon his wide experience and succinctly provides the listener with the very essence of Advocacy. Mr. Goldberg communicates in a straightforward and practical way. He is thoughtful and thought provoking and and his lecture is laced with humor. Goldberg gives real insight into the art and techniques of persuasion. Goldberg's basic rules of advocacy have until now been notoriously hard to access, but this project captures and explains them in a format designed for attorneys of all skill levels. Even the most experienced trial lawyer will find Goldberg's lecture of value. Amongst the practical topics covered are voice projection techniques, how to stand in court and personal bearing, how to handle a crusty judge, how to project an image of confidence, how to avoid pomposity, how to overcome nerves. Then in great depth, Mr. Goldberg QC explains and illustrates the summit of the Advocate's role, how to cross-examine an opposing witness. Ordinarily, Mr Goldberg's face to face courses would $400 per person. This is an excellent opportunity for attorneys take a look at the principles of Advocacy from one of the top criminal lawyers in the UK.
Another in Professor Edward Siemen's series of business law lectures. Take it as part of the series or as a stand alone refresher on agency law. Professor Siemens discusses the creation of an agency, apparent agency, the termination of an agency, duties of an agent and principal, and the role of agency in business.
This lecture by Professor Edward E. Siemens is the introductory course on business law, International Law and Comparative Law in a series of approximately twelve hour and half lectures aimed at reintroducing the listener to the fundamentals of business law. The courses can all be taken in seriatim or individually.
In this one-hour lecture, we engage how legal systems encounter the animals outside our own species. This one hour lecture is the first of three that cover a series of wide-ranging topics that fall naturally under the general heading “animal law." In this lecture and in the following two lectures, we look at the extent to which legal systems, specific cases, legislation, and background cultural values impact ways in which judges, administrators, politicians, lawyers, law students, legal scholars, and lay people think about animals other than humans.
In this particular lecture we focus on the most general issues, including the most noteworthy changes now found in the substantive areas of tort law, family law, and criminal law. We also look at the issue of standing, and at the end we briefly summarize the most general differences in the “animal law” now in place regarding companion animals (some will use the word “pets” for this area), research animals, food animals, and wildlife.
Paul Waldau is Director of the Center for Animals and Public Policy at Tufts University School of Veterinary Medicine, where he has been teaching ethics for 10 years and also directs one of the world’s leading graduate programs in the study of animals, policy and cultural values. In 2006, Paul was named the first Barker Lecturer in Animal Law at Harvard Law School, where he will again teach the “Animal Law” course in 2008. He has just finished directing the animal law reading group at Yale Law School, and also in the past has taught animal law courses at Boston College and Suffolk University law schools.
Paul has a Doctor of Philosophy degree from University of Oxford. He also has a Juris Doctor degree from UCLA Law School and a Master of Arts degree from Stanford University in Religious Studies.
He is the author of The Specter of Speciesism: Buddhist and Christian Views of Animals published by Oxford University Press in 2001, co-editor of A Communion of Subjects: Animals in Religion, Science, and Ethics published by Columbia University Press in 2006, and co-editor of the forthcoming (2008) An Elephant in the Room: The Science and Well-being of Elephants in Captivity.
He publishes widely, recent examples of which are the article “Animals” in the prestigious Encyclopedia of Religion and a series of articles on ethics and law instruction in veterinary schools published in Journal of Veterinary Medical Education.
Professor Edward Siemens explores and explains the differences between general partnerships, limited partnerships and limited liabilty partnerships. This course is part of Professor Siemens multi part Business Law Course, but also can stand alone as an independent course.
In this course, Professor Edward Siemens addresses and explores limited liability companies, corporations and franchising. This course is part of Professor Siemens Comprehensive Business Law course, but it also stands alone.
Attorney Dave Dennenberg explore the issues surrounding patent prosecution including:
• The latest court rulings.
• Linguistics of claim construction and resolving ambiguities in patent claims.
• Litigation strategies from plaintiff and defendant perspectives.
• Drafting an application that complies with today's standards for a litigation or license ready patent.
• Managing the prosecution process for the most effective claim drafting on a portfolio-wide basis.
• Working with litigators to enforce and protect your patent portfolio.
• Using ADR for the claims construction component.
This course focuses on basic attorney conflicts and how to avoid them. This course qualifies for one credit of the ethics requirement.
This course takes an in depth look at conflicts, how to recognize them and how to avoid them. It is recommended that the listener first complete Conflicts Part 1. This course qualifies for one credit of the ethics requirement.
Even the most experienced practitioner needs a refresher every now and then. As part of his multipart Business Law Seminar, Professor Edward Siemens revisits Contract Law.
Professor Edward Siemens provides a refresher course on contracts, as part of his multi part course on Business Law. Take as part of the multi part course, with Part 1 or all by itself.
This ninety minute course by Professor Edward Siemens, sets forth the basics of corporate governance, with an emphasis on the duties of Board Members.
This lecture examines the duty of compliance or the duty of obedience - the fourth fiduciary duty imposed on directors and officers. In general terms, the duty of compliance requires directors and officers to comply with the applicable provisions of the corporation's provisions and statutes that are set out in the articles and by-laws of the company.
In this three part course, Professor Edward Siemens discusses the different corporate forms and corporate financing. He also examines the techniques involved with piercing the corporate veil. And lastly, Professor Siemens talks about different aspects of limited liability companies and the pros and cons of choosing this corporate form.
This course covers various aspects of the coporate form and the law governing corporations and LLCs. The course will likewise address how these various corporate forms are governed and how they are financed.
In this sixty five minute lecture, Professor Edward Siemens discusses the obligations of corporate officers and directors to be diligent in the performance of their corporate obligations and loyal in all of their corporate dealings.
In the first part of this course, Professor Siemans covers various aspects of employment law. The second part of this course explores the law surrounding mergers and acquisitions. The following topics will be covered: wages and holidays, severance and wrongful dismissal, workplace safety and protection, human rights, harassment and mergers & acquisitions.
In the first part of this course, Professor Siemans discusses reducing the risks of incurring personal liabilities while serving as a director or officer. In the latter half of the course, Professor Siemans examines directors’ and officers’ insurance. The following topics will be covered: indemnification, indemnity agreements (corporate), indemnity agreements (third party), indemnity bylaws, insurance, directors’ and officers’ legal liability proposal forms, directors’ and officers’ liability policies, company reimbursement proposal forms and company reimbursement policies.
The first part of this course covers such issues as unfair competition, patents, copyright and trademark. The latter half of this course covers internet law and e-commerce – including websites, e-mail, e-business, secured transactions and copyright issues.
Directors and officers are subject to both civil and criminal penalties for failing to perform their duties and for contravening the provisions of the applicable operations law, statutes or codes. In this interesting course, Professor Siemens discusses the liabilities for corporate officers and directors.
In this extremely pertinent lecture, Professor Edward Siemens provides an overview of Securities Law and Commercial Paper. Topics covered include insider trading and communications.
In the first part of this course, Professor Siemans discusses the rights of shareholders and what actions shareholders can bring against the corporation and its directors and officers. The second part of this course defines fiduciary duties which fall into two broad categories: the duty of loyalty and the duty of care. These duties vary with different types of relationships between fiduciaries and their counter-parties.
Corporate governance encompasses the governance of corporations and all aspects of how a corporation is governed. It applies equally to any form of business organizations - including non-profits and independent governmental agencies. This course reviews the pillars of corporate governance and defines some key terms that are commonly used in this area of law.
As part of his business law series, Professor Edward Siemens addresses Employment Law and Equal Opportunity Statutes. In this course, Professor Siemens provides an overview of those laws and statutes that govern the employer/employee relationship including OSHA, Worker's Comp, ERISA, COBRA, The Family Leave Act, The Fair Labor Standards Act, and Equal Opportunity Statutes. This course provides an excellent overview for the general practioner or for any employer or employee.
This course focuses on the information technology that sophisticated law firms use, and on the ways this technology can be misused. This course will avoid discussing here such basic subjects as network design, hardware and software selection, lawyer and staff training, security implementation (firewalls, etc.), viruses and spy-ware, maintenance of intranets and extranets, and password protocols. Instead, Mr. Freivogel will discuss those subjects that, for one reason or another, require the involvement of lawyers and top law firm administrators. This course qualifies for one credit of the ethics requirement.
This is one of a series of courses published for the busy practitioner who wants to brush up on the basics of European Union Law. This course examines the legal order of the EC and the supremacy of EC Law over national law before considering in greater detail a variety of aspects of EC law such as the direct and indirect effect of regulations, decisions and directives, the principles involved in the interpretation of EC law and the liability of member states for breach of EC law.
This is one of a series of courses published for the busy practitioner who wants to brush up on the basics of European Union Law. This course provides a detailed examination of the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice (ECJ), looking first at its preliminary ruling procedure before turning to consider its powers of judicial review of the EC Institutions. The course then looks at the non-contractual liability of EC institutions in respect of damage caused in the performance of their duties before concluding with a review of the procedures involved in the enforcement of EC law.
This is one of a series of courses published for the busy practitioner who wants to brush up on the basics of European Union Law. This course deals with the law of the Single Market and provides a detailed examination of the law relating to the free movement of workers, the freedom to provide services, the free movement of goods and the free movement of capital. The course concludes with a thorough consideration of EC Competition Law including agreements and restrictive practices under Article 81, the abuse of a dominant position under Article 82 and the various provisions relating to the enforcement of these two articles.
This course reveals the chronology of the formation of the EU, tracing its development from the end of the Second World War (when there existed a determination that there should be no repetition of the terrible events of 1939-45, and a conviction that closer co-operation between the countries of Europe held the key to realizing this ideal) right up to the present day. Early options and plans for creating economic integration and political union are discussed, along with the role played by the visionary Jean Monnet. The objectives and implications of all key treaties and agreements are covered, and the political atmosphere in which each was discussed and brought into force provides rich context. Each phase of enlargement is listed in the chronology, with details of individual countries’ referenda and applications.
This is one of a series of courses published for the busy practitioner who wants to brush up on the basics of European Union Law. This course begins with a detailed look at the creation of the EEC and its gradual development into the EC and EU before highlighting the various institutions which make up the EU and ending with an examination of the sources of EU Law.
In this lecture, attorney Richard A. Fogel, of Islip, New York, takes the listener through a detailed review of the "standard" Commercial General Liability Policy. This lecture is must listening for all attorneys that engage in an insurance practice or a personal injury practice. In addition, it provides an excellent background for business attorneys.
Ari Benjamin and Nicole Ricci discuss employee benefits and executive compensation issues with a focus on golden parachutes, I.R.C. §280G. This course will review the definition and elements of a golden parachute, the rules governing the payments and penalties imposed, hypothetical situations and some common misconceptions involved with golden parachutes. Information contained in this CLE lecture is invaluable.
In this course, attorney Jeffrey B. Gold discusses his experiences with the intracacies of litigating a coverage case involving suicide.
Internet Law and Computer Crimes is part of the business law series presented by Professor Edward Siemens. This new and developing area of law is helpful for any legal professional.
Judicial ethics consists of the standards and norms that bear on judges and covers such matters as how to maintain independence, impartiality and avoid impropriety. Disciplinary Actions for infractions of the rules of conduct by state judges are typically controlled by a state judicial commission. Attorney Jeffrey B. Gold discusses judicial ethics mainly within New York and explores the role of the judiciary, with the Bar and the public.
This course is a continuation of Judicial Ethics Part I. by Jeffrey B Gold, but also stands alone as a separate ethics course. Mr. Gold continues through the Code of Judicial Conduct intended to establish standards for the ethical conduct of judges, and then discusses Judicial Advisory Provisions as well as Discipline enacted and approved by the Court of Appeals on sitting judges.
Course Leader : Nick Jarrett-Kerr, Chairman of the English Law Society’s Law Management Section
This is one of a series of courses on legal practice management dealing with managing the people in the business, the clients, and the business itself and covering such aspects as key personnel, IT, finance, marketing, appraisals and many other issues facing firms in practice today.
This course deals with the creation of a law firm’s overall business strategy, examining and advising as to what elements it should contain and how best it can be successfully implemented. The course materials conclude with a suggested draft for a Partner’s Business Plan.
Course Outline:
Anabolic steroids are bigger news every day. Under the new Anabolic Steroid Control Act of 2004, which applies across the country (as of January 20, 2005), steroids and steroid precursors (such as "andro") are in the same legal class -- Schedule III -- as barbiturates, LSD precursors, veterinary tranquilizers like ketamine and narcotic painkillers like Vicodin. Simple possession is a federal offense punishable by up to one year in prison and/or a minimum fine of $1,000 for a first offense. Selling steroids, or possessing them with intent to sell, is a federal felony. Lecturer Rick Collins, Esq., is recognized as one of the nation's foremost authorities on steroids and the law. A former competitive bodybuilder and certified personal trainer, he offers a unique understanding of the bodybuilding community. Bodybuilders, Olympic and professional athletes, sports coaches and trainers, criminal lawyers, physicians, pharmacists, military servicemen, and even police officers from across America have paid for the opportunity to access Rick Collins' encyclopedic knowledge of anabolic steroids and their legal nuances and consequences.
Money Laundering and Anti-Terrorist Financing
Facts of the Case
After a police officer attempted to pull him over for speeding, Victor Harris fled in his vehicle, initiating a high-speed car chase. Attempting to end the chase, Deputy Timothy Scott rammed Harris's vehicle with his police cruiser. Harris crashed and was rendered a quadriplegic. Harris sued Scott in federal District Court, alleging that Scott had violated his Fourth Amendment rights by using excessive force. Scott claimed qualified immunity as a government official acting in his official capacity, but the District Court rejected the claim. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit affirmed.
In order to show that a government official is not entitled to qualified immunity, a plaintiff is required to prove that the official violated a clearly established constitutional right. The Eleventh Circuit ruled that Scott's actions constituted an unreasonable seizure in violation of the Fourth Amendment. Because there was no imminent threat - Harris remained in control of his vehicle and the roads were relatively empty - Scott's use of deadly force was unconstitutional. Although no Appellate Court had ruled on the specific question of the use of deadly force in a high-speed chase, the Eleventh Circuit ruled that the limits on deadly force were "clearly established."
Question
1) Does a police officer who stops a high-speed chase by ramming a fleeing suspect's car violate the Fourth Amendment's protection against unreasonable seizure?
2) Was it "clearly established" in federal law that an officer violates the Fourth Amendment by using deadly force during a high-speed chase?
This is another in the series of CLE courses brought to you by CLE123, Inc. and Oyez.org featuring an oral argument before the Supreme Court of the United States and the Decision. This is a must listen for all personal injury attorneys as it deals with the validity of Medicaid Liens on personal injury settlements.
Facts of the Case
Heidi Ahlborn was injured and permanently disabled in a car accident. She received Medicare payments totaling $215,645 through the Arkansas Department of Human Services (ADHS) to pay for her medical treatment. In order to be eligible for the Medicare payments, Arkansas law required Ahlborn to give the ADHS the "right to any settlement, judgment, or award" she might receive because of the accident, up to the amount Medicare had paid for her treatment.
Several years after the accident, Ahlborn received $550,000 in a settlement with the parties liable for her injuries. The sum covered her medical treatment as well as pain and suffering, lost earnings, and her lost earning potential in the future. Only $35,581 of the settlement was earmarked for her medical treatment, however. When the ADHS demanded that she repay the full $215,645, therefore, Ahlborn refused, and the issue went to a federal district court in Arkansas. The judge sided with the ADHS, ruling that it was not unreasonable for Arkansas to require Ahlborn to agree to repay them fully from any settlement she might receive in order to be eligible, even if the portion specifically allocated for medical treatment was less than the amount demanded by Medicaid.
An 8th Circuit Court of Appeals panel reversed, however, finding that seizing money from her settlement that had not been earmarked for medical treatment would violate federal Medicaid regulations, which forbid state governments from seizing the property of Medicaid recipients in order to recover money spent on treatment. The panel therefore ordered that Ahlborn repay just $35,581 to the ADHS.
Question
Do federal Medicaid statutes limit the amount a state can recover in reimbursement from a third-party payment to the portion earmarked for medical treatment?
This CLE lecture brought to you by CLE123,Inc. and Oyez.org consists of oral argument before the United States Supreme Court in Buckeye Check Cashing v. Cardegna. The issue before the court is the validity of a particular conract under the Federal Arbitration Act.
Facts of the Case
John Cardegna signed a contract for a loan from Buckeye Check Cashing. The contract contained a clause in which Cardegna agreed to resolve any controversies over the loan through arbitration. Cardegna later sued Buckeye, claiming that the conditions for the loan stipulated by the contract were illegal. Buckeye filed a motion in Florida district court to have the case resolved by arbitration, as required by the contract. Cardegna countered that the contract as a whole was illegal and that the arbitration clause was therefore not enforceable. The court agreed and ruled for Cardegna.
On appeal, the state appeals court reversed, holding that the Federal Arbirtration Act, as interpreted by the U.S. Supreme Court, allows arbitration clauses to be enforced even if they are part of otherwise invalid contracts. The appeals court relied on the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Prima Paint Corporation v. Flood & Conklin Manufacturing Company. The Florida Supreme Court disagreed with the appeals court's use of Prima Paint, however, because the contract in that case had been merely voidable, while the contract in Cardegna's case was actually illegal. The Florida Supreme Court therefore reversed, ruling in favor of Cardegna.
Question
Under the Federal Arbitration Act, may a party avoid arbitration by arguing that the contract in which the arbitration clause is contained is illegal?
Facts of the Case
MercExchange patented a design for an online marketplace in which a single company provides the trustworthy framework within which buyers and sellers can negotiate for goods. After negotiations with eBay and Half.com to license the patent failed, MercExchange brought suit in federal district court alleging patent violation under the Patent Act. The jury sided with MercExchange, ruling that its patent had been violated, but the district court judge refused to issue a permanent injunction. The injunction would have forced eBay and Half.com to stop using the contested framework, but the judge applied the traditional four-part test to determine whether an injunction was necessary and found that it was not. That decision was reversed, however, by the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, which applied a "general rule that courts will issue permanent injunctions against patent infringements absent exceptional circumstances."
Question
Under the Patent Act, should a permanent injunction always be issued when a patent has been violated, absent exceptional circumstances?
Another in the series of CLE courses brought to you by CLE123, Inc. and Oyez.org. This one deals with constitutionality of the BiPartisan Campaign Reform Act's ban on certain political advertising during the sixty day window prior to an election.
Facts of the Case
Wisconsin Right to Life (WRTL), a nonprofit political advocacy corporation, ran three advertisements encouraging viewers to contact two U.S. Senators and tell them to oppose filibusters of judicial nominees. WRTL intended to keep running the ads through the 2004 election, but the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (BCRA) prohibits corporate funds from being used for certain political advertisements in the 60-day period prior to an election. WRTL sued the Federal Election Commission (FEC), claiming that the BCRA was unconstitutional as applied to the advertisements. In 2006, the Supreme Court let the "as applied" challenge proceed (see Wisconsin Right to Life v. Federal Election Commission, 04-1581). In McConnell v. Federal Election Commission, the Court had upheld Congress's power to regulate "express advocacy" ads that support or oppose political candidates, but WRTL claimed that its ads were "issue ads" rather than express advocacy. WRTL also argued that the government lacked a compelling interest sufficient to override the corporation's First Amendment free speech interest. The FEC countered that WRTL's ads were "sham issue ads," which refrain from explicitly endorsing or opposing a candidate but are intended to affect an election.
A three-judge District Court agreed with WRTL's arguments and ruled the BCRA unconstitutional as applied to the ads. The court refused the FEC's request that it inquire into the intent and likely effect of the ads, because those determinations would be impractical and would have a chilling effect on protected speech. Analyzing only the explicit content of the ads, the court found them to be legitimate issue ads and not express advocacy or sham issue ads. The court also held that the government's justification for banning express advocacy ads by corporations - the need to reduce political corruption and public cynicism - did not apply to ads that do not endorse or oppose a candidate. Therefore, the court ruled that the government lacked a compelling interest to justify the burden on WRTL's First Amendment rights.
Question
Is the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act's ban on the use of corporate treasury funds for political advertisements in the 60 days before an election unconstitutional as applied to advertisements that do not explicitly endorse or oppose a candidate?
This CLE course which qualifies for 1 hour of Ethics credit is brought to you by CLE123,Inc. and Oyez.org. The Course like the other Oyez.org courses consists of oral argument before the United States Supreme Court.
Attorney Gentile was disciplined by the State Bar of Nevada for making statement during the pendency of a criminal proceeding. The statements which happened to be critical of the prosecuting authorities were determined to be violative of a Nevada Disciplinary Rule which prohibited such statemens. Gentile claimed that the rule was an improper restriction on free speech. This case is unusual as it is one of very few where the Court involved itself in a case involving Attorney Discipline.
This CLE course, brought to you by CLE123, Inc. and Oyez.org, consists of oral argument in Gonzalez v. Carhart, which dealt with the constitutionality of the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act.
Facts of the Case: In 2003, Congress passed and the President signed the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act. The controversial concept of partial-birth abortion is defined in the Act as any abortion in which the death of the fetus occurs when "the entire fetal head [...] or [...] any part of the fetal trunk past the navel is outside the body of the mother." Dr. Leroy Carhart and other physicians who perform late-term abortions sued to stop the Act from going into effect. The plaintiffs argued that the Act could apply to a more common abortion procedure known as "D&E" ("dilation and evacuation"), as well as to the less common "intact D&E," sometimes called D&X ("dilation and extraction"). With this application the Act would ban most late-term abortions and thus be an unconstitutional "undue burden" on the right to an abortion, as defined by the Supreme Court in Planned Parenthood v. Casey. The plaintiffs also argued that the Act's lack of an exception for abortions necessary to protect the health of the mother rendered it unconstitutional under the Supreme Court's decision in Stenberg v. Carhart, regardless of Congress's finding in the Act that partial-birth abortions are never medically necessary.
A Federal District Court agreed and ruled the Act unconstitutional on both grounds. The government appealed to the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. The government argued that the Act only bans a narrow category of abortion procedures, and that a health exception is not required when Congress determines that a banned abortion procedure is never necessary for the health of the mother. The Eighth Circuit disagreed and upheld the District Court, ruling that a health exception is required for all bans on abortion procedures when "substantial medical authority" supports the necessity of the procedure. The Circuit Court ruled that the ongoing disagreement among medical experts over the necessity of intact D&E abortions was sufficient to establish that the Act was unconstitutional without a health exception. The Circuit Court did not reach the question of whether the Act was so broad as to qualify as an unconstitutional "undue burden."
Question: Is the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003 an unconstitutional violation of personal liberty protected by the Fifth Amendment because the Act lacks an exception for partial-birth abortions necessary to protect the health of the mother?
This CLE course consists of a brief introduction by attorney Jeffrey B. Gold, and then a complete oral argument before the United States Supreme Court. The issue before the court is the constitutionality of Oregon's Death with Dignity Act, which permitted physician assisted suicide.
This course is brought to you by CLE123, Inc. in conjunction with The Oyez Project. The Oyez Project is a non-profit organization dedicated to preserving an archive of proceedings before the United States Supreme Court. For more information on the Oyez Project, please visit www.Oyez.org.
Paul D. Clement for the petitioner and Alberto R. Gonzales, Attorney General & Eve C. Gartner for the respondent, Planned Parenthood, with an introduction by Jeffrey Gold, Esq.
This course deals with the legality of the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act signed by President George W. Bush. The question presented is whether or not the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003 is unconstitutional under the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment because it lacks an exception for partial birth abortions necessary to protect the health of the mother or because it is unconstitutionally vague. The court’s decision will be available shortly.
This CLE course consists of excellent oral argument before the United States Supreme Court arising out of the detention of an American Citizen who was deemed an enemy combatant by the United States Government, and held without access to counsel.
This CLE course is brought to you in cooperation with The Oyez Project. The Oyez Project is a non-profit organization dedicated to preserving an archive of the United States Supreme Court. For more information on the Oyez Project, please visit Oyez.org.
Petitioner Ibanez is a member of the Florida Bar; she is also a Certified Public Accountant (CPA) licensed by respondent Florida Board of Accountancy (Board), and is authorized by the Certified Financial Planner Board of Standards, a private organization, to use the designation "Certified Financial Planner" (CFP). She referred to these credentials in her advertising and other communication with the public concerning her law practice, placing CPA and CFP next to her name in her yellow pages listing and on her business cards and law offices stationery. Notwithstanding the apparent truthfulness of the communication-it is undisputed that neither her CPA license nor her CFP authorization has been revoked-the Board reprimanded her for engaging in "false, deceptive, and misleading" advertising. The District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District, affirmed.
Held: The Board's decision censuring Ibanez is incompatible with First Amendment restraints on official action.
Facts of the case: New London, a city in Connecticut, used its eminent domain authority to seize private property to sell to private developers. The city said developing the land would create jobs and increase tax revenues. Susette Kelo and others, whose property was seized, sued New London in state court. The property owners argued the city violated the Fifth Amendment's takings clause, which guaranteed the government will not take private property for public use without just compensation. Specifically, the property owners argued that taking private property to sell to private developers was not public use. The Connecticut Supreme Court ruled for New London.
Question: Does a city violate the Fifth Amendment's takings clause if the city takes private property and sells it for private development, with the hopes the development will help the city's bad economy?
Speaker: Charles A. Rosenthal (Harris County Houston, Texas, argued the cause for Texas) & Paul M. Smith (Argued the cause for the petitioners) with an introduction by Jeffrey Gold, Esq.
This CLE course, brought to you by CLE123, Inc. and Oyez.org, consists of the oral argument before the United States Supreme Court in Lawrence and Garner v. Texas, as well as a reading of the Court's decision. In this case, a sharply divided court was asked to strike down a Texas Law that criminalized consensual homosexual conduct. The argument is spirited and the Court is engaged and divided.
Facts of the case: Responding to a reported weapons disturbance in a private residence, Houston police entered John Lawrence's apartment and saw him and another adult man, Tyron Garner, engaging in a private, consensual sexual act. Lawrence and Garner were arrested and convicted of deviate sexual intercourse in violation of a Texas statute forbidding two persons of the same sex to engage in certain intimate sexual conduct. In affirming, the State Court of Appeals held that the statute was not unconstitutional under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, with Bowers v. Hardwick, 478 U.S. 186 (1986), controlling.
Facts of the Case: Jose Lopez, a Mexican national living in South Dakota, was convicted of aiding and abetting the possession of cocaine. The crime is a felony under South Dakota law, but only a misdemeanor under the federal Controlled Substances Act.
The Immigration and Naturalization Service began proceedings to remove Lopez from the country. Lopez applied for a cancellation of his removal, citing the Immigration and Naturalization Act (INA). The INA allows an alien to avoid removal if he meets certain qualifications and has no prior "aggravated felony" convictions. Lopez argued that he was eligible for cancellation of his removal because his drug offense was only a misdemeanor under federal law.
An Immigration Judge denied Lopez's request for cancellation, and the Board of Immigration Appeals affirmed, on the grounds that Lopez had committed an aggravated felony. Lopez then sued the Attorney General and brought his case to the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. The Circuit Court affirmed the lower courts, ruling that a crime is an aggravated felony under the INA if it is a felony under either federal or state law.
Question: Does a drug crime constitute an "aggravated felony" under the Immigration and Naturalization Act if the crime is a felony under state law but only a misdemeanor under federal law?
This CLE Course brought to you by CLE123, Inc. and Oyez.org consists of oral argument before the United States Supreme Court in a case involving Bankruptcy Law. The issue before the Court was whether the right in Section 706(a) of the Bankruptcy Code to convert a Chapter 7 Bankruptcy to another chapter can be denied because of bad faith?
Facts of the Case: Grokster and other companies distributed free software that allowed computer users to share electronic files through peer-to-peer networks. In such networks, users can share digital files directly between their computers, without the use of a central server. Users employed the software primarily to download copyrighted files, file-sharing which the software companies knew about and encouraged. The companies profited from advertising revenue, since they streamed ads to the software users. A group of movie studios and other copyright holders sued and alleged that Grokster and the other companies violated the Copyright Act by intentionally distributing software to enable users to infringe copyrighted works. The district court ruled for Grokster, reasoning that the software distribution companies were not liable for copyright violations stemming from their software, which could have been used lawfully. The Ninth Circuit affirmed.
Question: Were companies that distributed file-sharing software, and encouraged and profited from direct copyright infringement using such software, liable for the infringement?
This course evolves out of the Mickens v. Taylor case, which deals with the issue of ineffective assistance of counsel and a split among the Federal Circuits as to how to handle writs asserting ineffective assistance of counsel.
This CLE course is brought to you in cooperation with The Oyez Project. The Oyez Project is a non-profit organization dedicated to preserving an archive of the United States Supreme Court. For more information on the Oyez Project, please visit Oyez.org.
In this CLE Course, brought to you by CLE123,Inc. and Oyez.org, you will hear the both sessions of the oral argument before the Unites States Supreme Court in Roe v. Wade.
Facts of the case: Roe v. Wade is, of course, the seminal case on a woman's right to choose to have an abortion in the face of a state's opposition to such a procedure. Roe, a Texas resident, sought to terminate her pregnancy by abortion. Texas law prohibited abortions except to save the pregnant woman's life. After granting certiorari, the Court heard arguments twice. The first time, Roe's attorney, Sarah Weddington, could not locate the constitutional hook of her argument for Justice Potter Stewart. Her opponent, Jay Floyd, misfired from the start. Weddington sharpened her constitutional argument in the second round. Her new opponent, Robert Flowers, came under strong questioning from Justices Potter Stewart and Thurgood Marshall.
Question: Does the Constitution embrace a woman's right to terminate her pregnancy by abortion?
This CLE Course consists of a brief introduction and an Oral Argument before the United States Supreme Court. The issue before the Court is whether states may execute individuals, who committed their crimes when they were minors. Not surprisingly, the argument is intense and the Court is particularly hot and divided. The Court summarizes its decision at the conclusion of the oral argument.
This CLE course is brought to you in cooperation with The Oyez Project. The Oyez Project is a non-profit organization dedicated to preserving an archive of the United States Supreme Court. For more information on the Oyez Project, please visit http://www.Oyez.org.
This CLE course brought to you by CLE123, Inc. and Oyez.org consists of oral argument before the United States Supreme Court in Swidler and Berlin v. U.S. This course qualifies for one credit hour of ethics, in that it deals with the attorney-client privilege and whether it has applicability after the death of the client.
This Supreme Court Argument arises out of the Vince Foster case. Nine days before Vince Foster's death, apparently by suicide, he met with attorney James Hamilton. After Foster's death, Hamilton's handwritten notes were subpoenaed. In this case, the Supreme Court hears argument as to whether or not the attorney-client privilege survives the client's death. Hot Bench - Great Argument - a 6-3 decision.
This CLE course is brought to you in cooperation with The Oyez Project. The Oyez Project is a non-profit organization dedicated to preserving an archive of the United States Supreme Court. For more information on the Oyez Project, please visit Oyez.org.
Facts of the Case: The government instituted eminent domain proceedings against a landfill belonging to the city of Duncanville, Texas as part of a flood control project. The government argued that it need only pay the ordinary fair market value of the land, while the city argued that the government should pay that value plus the cost of acquiring and developing a new landfill. In the trial court, the jury found that the land was worth $225,000 and a reasonable substitute facility was worth about $700,000. The District Court entered a judgment for $225,000 plus interest. The Court of Appeals reversed and remanded, and the government appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Question: Is just compensation in this case properly measured by the cost of a reasonable substitute landfill or by the fair market value of the condemned facility?
This CLE course brought to you by CLE123, Inc. and Oyez.org focuses on the Constitutionality of the Bail Reform Act.
Facts of the Case: The 1984 Bail Reform Act allowed the federal courts to detain an arrestee prior to trial if the government could prove that the individual was potentially dangerous to other people in the community. Prosecutors alleged that Salerno and another person in this case were prominent figures in the La Cosa Nostra crime family.
Question: Did the Bail Reform Act violate the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause?
Speaker: James W. Ellis (Argued the cause for the petitioner) & Pamela A. Rumpz (Argued the cause for the respondent) with an introduction by Jeffrey Gold, Esq.
Daryl Renard Atkins was convicted of abduction, armed robbery, and capital murder. In the penalty phase of Atkins' trial, the defense relied on one witness, a forensic psychologist, who testified that Atkins was mildly mentally retarded. The jury sentenced Atkins to death, but the Virginia Supreme Court ordered a second sentencing hearing because the trial court had used a misleading verdict form. During re-sentencing the same forensic psychologist testified, but this time the State rebutted Atkins' intelligence. The jury again sentenced Atkins to death. In affirming, the Virginia Supreme Court relied on Penry v. Lynaugh, in rejecting Atkins' contention that he could not be sentenced to death because he is mentally retarded.
This CLE course is brought to you in cooperation with The Oyez Project. The Oyez Project is a non-profit organization dedicated to preserving an archive of the United States Supreme Court. For more information on the Oyez Project, please visit http://www.Oyez.org.
International lawyers need to have a full and complete understanding of the a English Companies Act. This two part court, taught by one of England's top solicitors, is essential listening for anyone that works with international corporations or who is interested in comparative law. This course covers the following topics:
International lawyers need to have a full and complete understanding of the a English Companies Act. This two part court, taught by one of England's top solicitors, is essential listening for anyone that works with international corporations or who is interested in comparative law. In this second part of The Companies Act 2006, Professor Rees covers:
As part of his multipart series on business law, Professor Edward E. Siemens provides a refresher on tort law and business crimes. Professor Siemens discusses various torts and business crimes, the remedies for each and potential defenses. This course is an information packed three hours.
This Court taught by one of London's leading practitioners is essential for any attorney that works with international law, multinational corporations, or international intellectual property issues. Competition law is designed to protect consumers from restrictions on competition or abuses of market power which could generally be expected to result in reduced supplies and higher prices. This course begins its consideration of this area of law with a detailed examination of the Competition Act 1998 and how it deals with restrictive agreements and abuse of a dominant position in a market with particular reference to the powers of investigation and enforcement given by the Act to the Office of Fair Trading. The course then considers the Enterprise Act 2002 and the further powers it gives to the OFT and the Competition Commission before concluding with a look at the powers available to these bodies in connection with the control of mergers.