There is no shortage of CLE offerings, but we wanted to bring one to your attention: a virtual presentation on September 24, 2024. The program offers 8 credit hours, including 3 ethics hours. Berkeley Law School Dean Erwin Chemerinsky will
A recent opinion out of the North Carolina Court of Appeals is causing comment in the criminal bar. In In The Matter Of J.B.P, (No. COA23-269), a juvenile petition was filed against the juvenile, alleging possession of marijuana with intent
Morgan’s prior blog post on State v. McLean started the wheels turning on a topic I find fascinating: oral notices of appeal.
Civil lawyers love written notices of appeal. Have you ever heard a civil attorney say, “I wish I
Big news out of the Court of Appeals for criminal practitioners. In State v. McLean, the Court of Appeals addressed a notice of appeal that was given orally the day after the trial ended and the defendant was sentenced.
Unicorn Disguise
Oral argument in the appellate courts typically last an hour, with 30 minutes allotted to each side to present arguments. But might a shorter oral argument period be more productive if the parties knew ahead of time the precise issue
I have blogged annually about the Appellate Judges Education Institute’s Summit. This year it is being held in Boston from November 14 through 17. As in prior years, it’s going to be a dilly. Here’s a link with
So much of the law is geared towards addressing what happens when two black-letter principles apply simultaneously but point to different outcomes.
The Court of Appeals had to resolve just such a conflict this week in In re: J.B. In
Can an appellee say that the lower court got it wrong? If so, when?
In many appeals, the alignment of interests is clear: the appellant is the party who disagrees with the ruling at issue, and the appellee is the
On Tuesday, the Fourth Circuit issued an important opinion in United States v. Canada, No. 22-4519, holding that 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) (the “felon in possession” statute) is facially constitutional even after Bruen—the Supreme Court’s current framework for testing
