Incorrigible Dicta
Platitudes and Diatribes from the Best Defense Money Can’t Buy

Sometimes it happens

Today I had to object because a judge allowed the Commonwealth additional time to respond to a rule 36 issue which we’ve been raising for the past year, and have had motions filed for over a month.


Posted by Alex Ramos on May 5th, 2010 :: Filed under A Day in the Life
Tags :: ,

Anti-SLAPP Statute–No Fees If Plaintiff Voluntarily Dismisses

Yesterday the Appeals Court issued a decision that was probably correct, but disappointing.  The gist of it is that we have a law in Mass that if you get sued for “public participation,” you can file a motion to dismiss and make the big bully pay your legal fees.  The idea is that people with deep pockets (like Wal*Mart) shouldn’t be able to use the legal system to intimidate their political opponents (like local people who oppose building a new Wal*Mart).  These suits are called SLAPP suits, for Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation.  The idea of the SLAPP suit isn’t necessarily to win–it’s to distract your detractors, divert their resources from activism to litigation, and make them shut up.
After the jump, read how one SLAPP plaintiff carved out a loophole


Posted by AndyCowan on February 24th, 2010 :: Filed under In the News, Law for the Layman
Tags :: , , , ,

Five Things I Wish I’d Known in Law School

When PSLawNet asked me to write an essay for their new blog with some advice for public-interest law students, I happily agreed.  The essay, “five things I wish I’d known in law school,” went up on the PSLawNet blog today.


Posted by AndyCowan on February 1st, 2010 :: Filed under A Day in the Life
Tags ::

GVR, Baby!

(GVR: Grant, Vacate, and Remand — a disposition that is the US Supreme Court’s way of telling a lower court “don’t waste our time; go do what we told you to do.”  The court grants certiorari–agreeing to take the case; vacates the judgment below; and remands the case–sends it back to the lower court with instructions to get it right next time).

And that, friends is what happened today in Briscoe v. Virginia–the case that was widely feared (or hoped) to limit the reach of this summer’s decision in Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts.  That’s right, folks–you really really have to put the analyst on the witness stand!

And for the record, that is exactly what I predicted they were going to do when they granted cert in this case.


Posted by AndyCowan on January 25th, 2010 :: Filed under A Day in the Life
Tags :: , , ,

Mathematicians and Scientists will enjoy this…

As an astronomer-cum-lawyer and a big word nerd, I am thrilled to see that the Supreme Court took a break from being serious yesterday to learn a new word:


Posted by AndyCowan on January 12th, 2010 :: Filed under A Day in the Life, Judicial Pearls of Wisdom
Tags :: , , , ,