No brainer

I hope that you will agree that the Stop Online Piracy Act is an abomination, sponsored by Southwest Virginia's own Congressman Goodlatte of all people for no apparent reason.

It seems to me that empowering the courts to close off parts of the Internet through injunctions in the name of copyright protection is anti-business and anti-American - sounds more like China or Iran - and would represent the triumph of a small group of well-connected companies over the public interest. People are choosing to own fewer albums, legally or illegally, and messing with the Internet is not going to do anything to make more money for record companies.

The next ASL dean from Louisiana

I read today that the Appalachian School of Law has appointed Lucy S. McGough, a law professor on the faculty of the Louisiana State University, as its next Dean, to replace my good friend Wes Shinn, who himself was a Louisiana lawyer.

The press release is here.

Lincoln Memorial sues ABA over denial of law school accreditation

As reported here, the law school of Lincoln Memorial University has filed an antitrust lawsuit in federal court in the Eastern District of Tennessee against the American Bar Association for its denial of provisional accreditation to the new LMU law school in Knoxville.

The judge assigned to the case is Thomas Varlan. In 2003, an ABA committee rated Judge Varlan "qualified" to be a federal judge by a split decision, with a minority of those voting finding him to be "not qualified," as shown here.

More on the Virginia Republican primary ballot

Here is a link to the memorandum filed on behalf of the Rick Perry campaign in support of its motion for a temporary injunction against the application of the requirements of Va. Code 24.2-545 that would keep Perry off the primary ballot in Virginia.

Rick Hasen had this preliminary take on the litigation, the gist of which is that it was filed too late.

Discussion of the desirability or feasibility of changing the Virginia statutes to let other candidates on the ballot or to be "write-in" candidates through legislation in the upcoming session of the General Assembly can be read here in the Christian Science Monitor, here in the Richmond Times-Dispatch, this commentary from the Richmond paper, this article says both Patrick McSweeney and Paul Goldman are on board to get the laws changed, and this commentary by Goldman (on Fox!) states his views.

On the political ramifications, this article says it will cost Gingrich votes in other states, this opinion says the disorganized do not deserve to win, and this article from Utah has Mitt Romney's take, which is that the disorganization of the Gingrich campaign makes it look like Lucy and Ethel trying to wrap chocolates on an assembly line in this famous episode.

On the Rick Perry lawsuit

I read with interest the Complaint filed by my friend Hugh Fain on behalf of the Rick Perry campaign, seeking relief from the campaign's failure to meet the statutory requirements contained in Va. Code 24.2-545 to get on the ballot for the Republican Presidential primary in Virginia.

It raises two claims, the first is that the residency requirement for petition "circulators" is unconstitutional as a violation of the First Amendment, based on Buckley v. American Constitional Law Foundation, 525 U.S. 182 (1999). The second is that the requirement of signatures from 10,000 qualified voters with at least 400 qualified voters from each congressional district in the Commonwealth is itself unconstitutional as a violation of the First Amendment. The Complaint seeks injunctive relief against the enforcement of these two requirements.

Interestingly, the lawsuit does not address any issue of "petition verification" by the Republican Party of the sufficiency of the signatures, most likely because the Complaint acknowledges that the Perry campaign presented only 6,000 signatures.

Regarding the alleged residency requirement for petition "circulators," or witnesses, this requirement is not in section 24.2-545, as pointed out here, and the Complaint says only that it appears on the petition form required for use by the State Board of Elections. Section 24.2-521 contains the residency requirement for petition witnesses for some offices, but does not reference presidential campaigns. This ambiguity creates a state law issue that would seem to be preliminary to the constitutional issue - does the residency requirement even apply to candidates seeking to run in a presidential primary?

The residency requirement for petition witnesses contained in section 24.2-506 to get on the ballot for general elections other than as a party nominee has been upheld in a series of lawsuits mostly brought by Libertarian candidates, but its current status is somewhat in doubt following the Fourth Circuit's decision in Lux v. Judd. In Lux, the Court observed that while the residency requirement was upheld by the Court in Libertarian Party of Virginia v. Davis, 766 F.2d 865 (4th Cir. 1985), the holding in Davis may have been overruled by the Supreme Court's subsequent decisions in Buckley and Meyer v. Grant, 486 U.S. 414 (1988). The Lux court remanded the case to Judge Hudson, to determine whether the statutory requirement could be valid under some rationale other than the one briefly stated by the Court in Davis - to ensure that the candidate had a minimum level of local support. Other rationales that would support a residency requirement are expressed in the dicta from the Buckley case, which suggests that a state might require the witnesses to the signing of petitions to be Virginia residents so that they could be subpoenaed if need be, as non-residents could not.

The year in review, according to lawyer-bloggers

This password-protected article by Deborah Elkins in VLW includes quotes from me, appellate guru Steve Emmert from Virginia Beach, appellate guru Jay O'Keefe from Gentry Locke in Roanoke, John Tarley in Williamsburg, Jim Kinsel from Northern Virginia, construction lawyer Chris Hill, Richmond litigator Dabney Carr, Crimlaw's Ken Lammers from Wise County, Josh Silverman, Qui Tam blogger Zachary Kitts, and local government law expert Andrew McRoberts.

On the perils of appellate practice

In the past few days, three opinions have cracked down on abusive tactics in appellate litigation:

In Gonzalez-Servin v. Ford Motor Company, Judge Posner compared counsel to an ostrich for failure to address recent precedent - with funny pictures.

In Kim v. Westmoore Partners, a California appeals court fined counsel $10,000, for doing things like asking for more time to write a brief and then cribbing almost entirely from another brief the same lawyer had filed in an earlier case.

Today, the Fourth Circuit in Matter of Liotti gave a public reprimand to a lawyer for inaccuracies in his characterization of the record and the facts.

On Crohn's disease and the patent case being heard next week in the Supreme Court

Next week the United States Supreme Court will hear argument in a patent case styled Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories, Inc., for which the SCOTUSblog has this link to the many briefs.

The patents at issue involve blood testing after administration of a drug called azathioprine, which I have taken off and on for some years. Azathioprine is an immune suppressant used as an anti-rejection drug for people who receive organ transplants. It is also prescribed for Crohn's disease and ulcerative colitis, which are thought to be disorders of the immune system.

It is an alarming thing to sit and read the label as I used to do sometimes and think about whether you want to take that pill. Some people who take azathioprine for Crohn's disease get one form of cancer or another and die. For some patients, it works no better than placebos on their moderate to severe Crohn's disease. The challenge with this powerful medicine is how to figure out how to give enough without giving too much to achieve the good effects and avoid the bad. Not everyone requires the same dosage to achieve the same level of metabolites in their blood.

A group of researchers "developed a database of pediatric patients with
inflammatory bowel disease who had received thiopurine treatment," applied standard laboratory techniques to measure the thiopurine metabolite levels in their blood, and observed some correlations between particular values and whether the patients did better or worse. The appellee Prometheus learned of this research, licensed it from the inventors and the hospital for whom they worked, filed patent applications, and marketed a blood test product that would measure whether the metabolite levels for GI patients taking azathioprine were within the optimal range of values.

The Mayo Clinic used this product for years, then decided that it could make and sell its own product to do a better job of evaluating thiopurine metabolite levels. Prometheus sued for patent infringement, and the case made its way to the high court.

The question presented, according to the appellant Mayo, is:

"Whether 35 U.S.C. § 101 is satisfied by a patent claim that covers observed correlations between blood test results and patient health, so that the patent effectively preempts use of the naturally occurring correlations, simply because well-known methods used to administer prescription drugs and test blood may involve 'transformations' of body chemistry."

In other words, the Court will decide whether Prometheus can patent what amounts to nothing more than a lab test to see whether the level of thiopurine metabolites is within the range of therapeutic values shown by the research.

On the face of it, the patent seems preposterous. When only ordinary testing techniques are involved, why should any company be able to claim exclusive ownership of the idea of testing for any level of some chemicals in the blood, based on research that shows some particular level is best for patient health? Yet such patents are evidently common, and defended as Prometheus sought to do in its brief, as necessary to fund the type of research that lead to the conclusions about the therapeutic levels of the thiopurine metabolites - even though the specific research in this case was not done for commercial purposes.

More on tie-breaking in the Virginia Senate

The Washington Post reports here and the Washington Times reports here that Democrats in the Virginia Senate will file suit for a determination of the powers of the Lieutenant Governor to break tie votes on the organization of the Senate.

Worth reading

This piece in the Baltimore Sun asks whether recent criminal cases show that the Fourth Circuit has become more "liberal."

Following the Supreme Court's decision to take up the cases, a series of articles appeared over the weekend denouncing the ethics of Supreme Court justices in anticipation that they will vote to overturn the Affordable Care Act, including here, here, here, and here.

Some U.Va. students are trying to get the University to stop using coal to heat its buildings, according to this story in the Charlottesville paper. The article did not say whether they think the coal money that went into the Carl Smith Center should also be sent back.

The executive director of Lenowisco was quoted in this article suggesting that the Santa Train perpetuates negative stereotypes of Southwest Virginians as people who cannot afford to buy their own candy and gifts.

Who can defend Proposition 8?

In Perry v. Brown, the California Supreme Court held today that the proponents of Proposition 8, the referendum that amended the California constitution to prohibit same-sex marriage, have standing to appeal the federal judgment that the state constitutional amendment violated the United States Constitution, where California officials including the new governor have refused to try to defend the amendment. The decision clears the way for the Ninth Circuit to decide the constitutional issue on the merits.

The amendment at issue added section 7.5 to the California constitution, which provides: "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California."

The California decision is interesting in its contrast with the Fourth Circuit decision in the health care case, where Virginia officials were held to have no standing to challenge the federal law.

In the photograph are Governor Brown and former Mayor Newsom, both opponents of Proposition 8.

Which ties can the Lieutenant Governor break?

The Virginia Constitution provides that "[t]he Lieutenant Governor shall be President of the Senate but shall have no vote except in case of an equal division." Va. Const. Art. 5, section 14.

Starting next year, the Virginia Senate will be split 20-20, when it votes along party lines. There has been reporting in the blogs and other media that the Republicans are refusing to "share power" in the organization of the Senate, such as the representation on committees.

In 1996 Va. Op. Atty. Gen. 31, 1980-1981 Op. Va. Att'y Gen. 97, and 1979-1980 Op. Va. Att'y Gen. 178, the Attorney General has offered opinions about which ties the Lieutenant Governor can and cannot break.

In the 1996 opinion, the Attorney General concluded that the Lieutenant Governor could not provide the tie-breaking vote on matters subject to the provisions of Article XII, section 1: "Any amendment or amendments to this Constitution may be proposed in the Senate or House of Delegates, and if the same shall be agreed to by a majority of the members elected to each of the two houses, such proposed amendment or amendments shall be entered on their journals, the name of each member and how he voted to be recorded, and referred to the General Assembly at its first regular session held after the next general election of members of the House of Delegates. If at such regular session or any subsequent special session of that General Assembly the proposed amendment or amendments shall be agreed to by a majority of all the members elected to each house, then it shall be the duty of the General Assembly to submit such proposed amendment or amendments to the voters qualified to vote in elections by the people, in such manner as it shall prescribe and not sooner than ninety days after final passage by the General Assembly."

In the later 1980 opinion, the Attorney General concluded that the Lieutenant Governor could not provide the tie-breaking vote on matters subject to this provision of Article IV, section 11: "No bill which creates or establishes a new office, or which creates, continues, or revives a debt or charge, or which makes, continues, or revives any appropriation of public or trust money or property, or which releases, discharges, or commutes any claim or demand of the Commonwealth, or which imposes, continues, or revives a tax, shall be passed except by the affirmative vote of a majority of all the members elected to each house, the name of each member voting and how he voted to be recorded in the journal."

Similar language regarding the votes of the "members elected to each house" appears in Article IV, section 6, pertaining to legislative sessions; Article V, section 6, pertaining to overriding vetoes; Article VI, section 7 pertaining to the selection of judges; Article VII, section 1, pertaining to special acts for localities; Article IX, section 1, pertaining to changing the number of State Corporation Commissioners; Article X, section 9, pertaining to state debt; and Article XII, section 2, pertaining to constitutional conventions.

The earlier 1980 opinion concluded that there was no similar limitation that would prohibit the Lieutenant Governor from voting to break a tie vote on the ratification of an amendment to the United States Constitution, but held that the Rules of the Senate might control whether the Lieutenant Governor got to vote.

The organization of the General Assembly is controlled by Article IV, section 7, which provides: "The House of Delegates shall choose its own Speaker; and, in the absence of the Lieutenant Governor, or when he shall exercise the office of Governor, the Senate shall choose from its own body a president pro tempore. Each house shall select its officers and settle its rules of procedure. The houses may jointly provide for legislative continuity between sessions occurring during the term for which members of the House of Delegates are elected. Each house may direct writs of election for supplying vacancies which may occur during a session of the General Assembly. If vacancies exist while the General Assembly is not in session, such writs may be issued by the Governor under such regulations as may be prescribed by law. Each house shall judge of the election, qualification, and returns of its members, may punish them for disorderly behavior, and, with the concurrence of two-thirds of its elected membership, may expel a member." Nothing in this provision on its face would appear to limit votes to "members elected to each house" in the same way as Article IV, section 11, or Article XII, section 1.

What has changed in pest control since 1989?

The Virginia Supreme Court would seem to have gotten it wrong in one of its two decisions dealing with the non-compete clause used by a pest control company, having reached the opposite conclusion in 2011 from what it held in 1989.

Justice McClanahan, in her dissent, observed that such a fundamental shift in so short a time is an offense against the Rule of Law.

I recall having an oral argument before the late Judge Richard Williams of the Eastern District some years ago, in my only (and somewhat terrifying) appearance before him, and when he asked me about some old precedent that I tried to dismiss as too old, he laughed and said, "so you're saying the Age of Enlightenment set in sometime after that decision, and you know better now than the Supreme Court did back then?"

The Home Paramount firm, the employer in both cases, has branched out beyond termites and will also take care of those stinkbugs, according to their website.

The online business entity records of all 50 states on one page

I was working on a project where I wanted to see what a corporation on the other side said in its corporate filings with the various states, and found this page, with links to the equivalent of the Virginia State Corporation Commission for all of the states.

And, it struck me that the SCC's online presence was sort of middle of the road compared to the other states - some of them make you pay to see much of anything, some have more detailed information, Virginia is better than most in that now you can download annual reports in PDF without getting a password or sending in a check.

Some states require the corporation to provide the names and addresses of its officers and directors. This information might be useful as evidence when there is a dispute of fact over a corporation's "principal place of business" for purposes of diversity jurisdiction. Under the Supreme Court's 2010 decision in Hertz Corp. v. King, the issue is reduced to where are the high level officers. Or so I have concluded from such opinions as Central West Virginia Energy Co. v. Mountain State Carbon, LLC, where the Fourth Circuit applying Hertz held that a company that mostly operated in Wheeling, West Virginia, and was even called "Wheeling" nevertheless had its principal place of business not in Wheeling but in another state.

I am a fan of Virginia's current State Corporation Commission, as the current Commissioners include Judy Jagdmann, and also interested by the facts that it was the only progressive product of Virginia's 1901 Constitutional Convention and that one of the early Commissioners was William Rhea, the original judge of the Corporation Court for the City of Bristol.

Celebrating 100 years in November

Coming up later in November is the event to celebrate the 100 years of the Big Stone Gap federal courthouse, which still looks just about like this, but for the wheelchair ramp on the side and there is no more flagpole on top, that I recall.

On the Bristol Circuit Court Clerk's race

The Bristol paper reports here on the candidates for Clerk of Court for the Circuit Court of Bristol, Virginia.

Terry Rohr can tell people that I am for her or against her, whichever will get her the most votes. Some state court clerk's offices are better than others - the Bristol office has always been helpful.

Her opponent suggests that Bristol might be better off if the technology in the Clerk's office was more cutting edge. I am not so sure about that. The problems I have had from time to time with the eLegal system they use for electronic filing in civil cases in Wise County make me think that that system is not quite perfected.

On the new Justice Powell from Virginia

Here is a report from the Richmond paper on the swearing in of Justice Cleo Powell, and here is an interesting story about the photography at the event. I don't know which of the photographers took the photograph shown here, from a media website.

Speculations about Senator Puckett's seat

Both the Bristol and Roanoke papers ran articles suggesting that Senator Puckett is in a competitive race for re-election, where his opponent is Adam Light. The Washington Post reported similarly on statewide Republican donations to Light.

In the pursuit of re-election, Senator Puckett has declared that he will not vote to re-elect President Obama in 2012, as stated here and here and here and here.

Got an iPhone

The new phone is a wonder, as in I wonder if I will ever figure it out.

On Rules of Evidence for Virginia

Today the VLW Daily Alert reports that the Virginia Supreme Court has adopted Rules of Evidence, and includes an article that suggests that their adoption is a result of Cynthia Kinser becoming the Chief Justice.

It may be evident from some of her opinions (such as the opinion for the Court in Shaheen v. County of Mathews) that Chief Justice Kinser is not as averse to the use of federal precedents as were some of her predecessors on the Court.

Two examples of this former aversion that stick in my head would include Jordan v. Clay's Rest Home, in which the Court by Justice Compton pointedly rejected the federal proof scheme developed over decades for resolving circumstantial cases of employment discrimination, and Doe v. Isaacs, in which the Court again by Justice Compton expressly refused to consider an unpublished Fourth Circuit opinion (by a panel that included Emory Widener).

The only opposition to Rule of Evidence that I ever heard among lawyers was the fear in some circles that it would lead to the adoption of the dreaded Daubert standard for the admissibility of expert testimony, which is viewed as anti-plaintiff. On the difference if any between the Virginia law of evidence and Daubert, I have often recommended this article by Judge Kelsey.