All posts in Supreme Court

Brown v. Board of Education redux

By | January 16, 2021 | Supreme Court | No comments

I was looking up something the other day and saw the Supreme Court opinion in Brown v. Bd of Ed.  I’m not sure I’ve ever actually read the case.  So I copied it and read it this morning, Saturday morning after my daily walk with my wife to get coffee.

My first thought about the case is the length of the opinion – 4 and a half pages before footnotes, 1873 words!  Oh for those days again, simplicity!

As for the merits, there is an interesting (and short) summary of grade school education in 1868 when the 14th Amendment was enacted, trying to figure out what Congress and the state meant when ratifying the 14th amendment.   Grade school education was largely non-existent then, certainly public education and especially in rural areas – so not much help there.  “We must look instead to the effect of segregation itself on public education.” Read more…

City of Chicago, Illinois v. Fulton, oral argument at the Supreme Court is next week

By | October 8, 2020 | Supreme Court | No comments

Oral argument at the Supreme Court in the case of City of Chicago, Illinois v. Fulton is set for next Tuesday, October 13, 2020.  The audio of the oral argument will be on the SCOTUS website on Friday Oct 16.  You can access it here.

This case deals with the automatic stay.  The City of Chicago seems to fund itself largely on parking tickets.  When the tickets aren’t paid, the vehicle is seized until the ticket is paid (which amount by then has gone up many times the original amount).  When the owner files a chapter 13, does the City have to return the vehicle?  The 7th Circuit said yes.  Of course if you ask me.

You can get all the briefs here.

In re Brace oral argument – watch it here

By | May 20, 2020 | Cases, Chapter 7, Supreme Court | No comments

The you tube oral argument at the California Supreme Court was released today.  The link posted by the Supreme Court is here.  

A YouTube video of Ed Hays arguing for the bankruptcy trustee is here.  

In re Brace – California Supreme Court hears oral argument about what constitutes community property

By | May 8, 2020 | Chapter 7, Supreme Court | No comments

My previous post on In re Brace is here.

The trustee was represented by Ed Hays, Marshack Hays LLP.  This is his post on social media.

Today, I was fortunate to be able to appear (virtually) and present oral arguments in a case before the California Supreme Court.  It was a very cool experience.  It took me 28 years to get a case before the high court and then Covid-19 kept me from appearing in person.  Hopefully, it won’t take as long to get another chance where I can appear in person.

What was the case about? Read more…

In re Brace to be argued at the California Supreme Court on May 5, 2020

By | April 15, 2020 | Appeals, Cases, Supreme Court | No comments

An email from the California Supreme Court:

IN RE CLIFFORD ALLEN BRACE, JR.
Case: S252473, Supreme Court of California

Date (YYYY-MM-DD): 2020-04-15
Event Description: Case ordered on calendar

Notes: To be argued on Tuesday, May 5, 2020, at 1:30 pm, in San Francisco. Counsel to appear via video or teleconference per Administrative Orders 2020-03-13 (March 16, 2020) and 2020-03-27 (March 27, 2020).

For more information on this case, go to:
https://appellatecases.courtinfo.ca.gov/search/case/dockets.cfm?dist=0&doc_id=2269894&doc_no=S252473&request_token=OCIwLSEmXkw7WyBZSCItSENIUEA0UDxTJiI%2BVz1TTDtJCg%3D%3D

Following up on Taggart

By | November 18, 2019 | Automatic Stay, Supreme Court | No comments

In Taggart, you may recall, the 9th Circuit said that a good faith belief that the discharge injunction doesn’t apply preempts contempt even when the “good faith belief” is “unreasonable.”  Huh?  One of the more surprising aspects of the proceeding at the Supreme Court was that both sides agreed – before oral argument – that the 9th Circuit got it wrong.  Well, thankfully the Supreme Court agreed and reversed saying that contempt is appropriate unless there is “a fair ground of doubt,” as to whether the discharge applies to the creditor or not.   The 9th Circuit test of “good faith works even if it’s not good faith,” was pitched out.  The Supremes sent it back to the 9th Circuit for further review.

Where does it stand now?

A brief history is necessary.  The creditor sought attorneys fees in state court based on post-discharge litigation involving a prepetition debt.  The creditor told the state court postpetition that the debtor was an “indispensable party” and that it needed a particular order against the debtor but otherwise was not trying to collect the debt as it knew the debt had been discharged.  This is not terribly unusual.  When the creditor later “won” and got the state court order it requested, it then asked for attorneys fees against the debtor for the postpetition litigation using the contract (which was discharged).  This is also not terribly unusual.  The creditor argues that the debtor “returned to the fray,” that is, participated in the postpetition litigation and therefore should be liable for the fees under the contract for the postpetition litigation. Read more…

Supreme Court Stat Pack available at Scotusblog

By | September 24, 2019 | Bankruptcy Data, Supreme Court | No comments

If you are a numbers nerd, be prepared to blow an hour just scrolling through the 46 pages of numbers.  You can get the final package for the last term here.

One statistic I found intriguing is the makeup of the 5-4 decisions.  Last term 20 cases were decided 5-4.  That is out of 66 cases in total – so 28% of the total.  You would think that the 5-4 decisions were all the five “conservatives” v. the four “liberals.”  But that was the lineup on only seven of the 20.  Justice Gorsuch voted with the four liberals in four cases to make the 5-4 majority.  Justice Roberts voted with the four liberals in two cases.  Justice Thomas and Justice Ginsburg were on the same side in three of the 5-4 cases!  Thomas and Sotomayor were on the same side in two of the 5-4 cases.

Another stat that jumps out at me is that Justice Kavenaugh voted with the majority 89% of the time.   He and Roberts voted together 92% of the time.

I better get to work.  Have fun.

Update on In re Brace – pending at the California Supreme Court

By | September 9, 2019 | Chapter 7, Supreme Court | No comments

This is the case where the California Supremes will decide whether property held by husband and wife as joint tenants is owned 50-50 by each or is owned as community property.   California law presumes both.  The BAP agreed with Judge Scott Yun and ruled that the “record title presumption of Cal. Evid. Code § 662” does not trump “the community property presumption of Cal. Fam. Code § 760” citing Valli v. Valli (In re Marriage of Valli), 58 Cal. 4th 1396 (2014).

The 9th Circuit punted the issue over to the California Supreme Court.  They are still doing briefing so we are probably a ways from a result.  The Supremes must rule within 90 days after oral argument but there is no deadline re when oral argument must be set.

 IN RE CLIFFORD ALLEN BRACE, JR. 
Case Number S252473 (See docket below) Read more…

Ransom – My ABA summary of the Supreme Court case

By | September 4, 2019 | Chapter 13, Supreme Court | No comments

I forgot about this summary I wrote for the ABA on the Ransom case at the Supreme Court.  http://sblog.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/ABA-Preview.Ransom.pdf

 

Nice quote on Chief Justice John Marshall

By | August 25, 2019 | Courts, Judges Corner, Supreme Court | No comments

I finally finished reading Miracle at Philadelphia by Catherine Drinker Bowen.  It’s a great book that really puts into perspective how we wound up with our constitution.  And how close it came to never happening, and then to not being ratified.   It’s pretty amazing that neither John Adams nor Thomas Jefferson were there.  Both were in Europe that summer.  George Washington and Benjamin Franklin “laid their shoulders to the great points, knowing that the little ones would follow of themselves.”

Anyway, there is a great comment on John Marshall that I want to remember.  The scene is the convention in Virginia brought afterwards to consider adopting the new constitution.

John Marshall, now in his thirty-third year, was a great strength to the Constitutionalists.  Ruddy and handsome, with wild black hair, a piercing dark eye, as a concession to the occasion he had draped his tall frame in a new coat which however had cost but a pound and looked it.  The assembly knew Marshall, respected him for his soldierly record in the Revolution and loved him for his sociability – which says Grisby primly, at times verged on excess.

John Marshall was with Washington at Valley Forge.

I want to add a quote from a poem at the end of Ms. Bowen’s Preface to the book:

If all the tales are told, retell them, Brother,
If few attend, let those who listen feel.

← Older Entries