Again? Really?

So here's another lesson: there are some contexts in which lawyers can rightly celebrate trial court victories and others in which a bit more circumspection is required. Sourcing Unlimited, Inc. v. Asimco Int'l Inc., First Cir. No. 07-254, decided yesterday, is a case in the latter category.

This is a case you should take a look at if you arbitrate. At all.

If You Want To Send Him To Jail, You Should Probably Take Some Testimony

This blog has devoted a lot of oxygen to criticizing lawyers who do a poor job for their clients. Sometimes the fault lies in, er, a different direction.

In Commonwealth v. King, Appeals Ct. No. 07-P-397, the District Court sent the defendant back to jail for 18 months for a probation violation. At the hearing the Court took no testimony, instead choosing to rely on a police report. Making this approximately the ten zillionth instance in which a court has misapplied, overlooked, or plain disregarded the hearsay rule.

The Appeals Court took a look at the record and noted that the defendant quite possibly did engage in some bad conduct, but said, in essence, NSFMF.

Two Lessons

Keep your promises. And read the contract. That's what we learn from NPS, LLC v. Minihane, SJC No. 10134, which the SJC handed down today.

Will this alleviate some of the sting from losing the Super Bowl? Hey, every little bit helps. And a win is a win.

**Disclosure: A few years ago, I was an insignificant member of a team of lawyers representing the plaintiff in this case.

Nonmutual Collateral Estoppel In The Criminal Context

Is that the best headline you've ever seen, or what?

So here's the situation: you and your pal are stopped by the police and they find drugs in the car. You and your pal hire separate lawyers. Your pal's lawyer moves to suppress the drug evidence because it was based on an illegal search. He wins and walks. You then file a similar motion, claiming that the Commonwealth is bound by the earlier determination that the search was illegal. Must the judge find in your favor?

Yesterday, in Commonwealth v. Stephens, SJC No. 9943, the Supreme Judicial Court said no. Interestingly, if you'd been pulled over in New York, the answer would have been yes.

Given that there are two schools of thought on this, don't be surprised if it goes all the way.

Open Meeting Plaintiffs Prevail (Sort Of) In Appeals Court

Today the Appeals Court ruled against Michael Flaherty and his compatriots in McCrea v. Flaherty, No. 07-P-224. The Court held that the defendants violated the Open Meeting law.

The victory for the plaintiffs, including Kevin McCrea, was not unequivocal, however. The Court sent the case back to the Superior Court for a determination of some factual issues. So Mr. Flaherty could still eke out a victory of sorts.

Still reading through this; updates possible.

Must-Read For Commercial Litigators

Our old friend, the Reverend Wright supporter -- kidding -- the McCain supporter who might as well live in New Hampshire alerts us to today's First Circuit decision Trans-Spec Truck Serv. v. Caterpillar Inc., No. 07-1476. And if you practice commercial litigation in the Commonwealth, you really ought to read it.

Why?

Because it's rare to have the benefit of an appellate court's detailed views on how it looks at practicing before magistrates, how it looks at motions to dismiss, when it is willing to convert a motion to dismiss into a motion for summary judgment, how it looks at motions for summary judgment, whether to permit a pleading to be amended. But there's more! The court considers substantive questions of unconscionability, waiver, and warranties.

The afore-mentioned McCainiac thinks that the law firm representing the appellant may have more to worry about than just losing this appeal. As if they didn't have enough to worry about already.

Tom Cruise, John Travolta, Beck, Call Your Office

Via Ron Newman at Universal Hub, this is just sickening. Scientologists, using a Boston lawyer who this blog will not name, have sworn out a criminal complaint against the guy who pulled a protest permit for a gathering at their Beacon Street facility. The charge is harassment.

What, you ask, is the problem? Harassment is illegal! And scary!

Well, the problem is that they can't finger this particular guy for any specific harassing activity. So why are they picking on him? Because they can't identify any of his compatriots. They were all wearing masks, see. So they decided to go after this particular guy because, well, he pulled the protest permit. So his was the only name they could find.

The most shameful aspect of this is that the very same constitutional freedom that enables this organization to operate with almost no government interference in this country is the one they're trying to take away from those who disagree with them. That's bad P.R. And it's bad citizenship, too.