Increasing economic globalization, as well as the phenomenon of the formation of integrated regional areas, constitutes a legal and commercial field composed of a multitude of elements that affect business development. In this process of economic globalization, commercial companies can influence, with particular intensity, the industrial and commercial aspects of many different countries and the concentration of capital. The concentration of capital facilitates the appearance of business groups that play an important role at both regional and world levels.
Small businesses are an integral part of the American economy. They play a crucial role in “technological change and productivity growth.” The United States government, recognizing the vital role of small businesses, often creates and disseminates publications stressing their importance. Despite these efforts, some federal courts interpret the Lanham Act in false-advertising suits in ways that fail to consider the importance of protecting small enterprises. Specifically, these decisions lower the burden of proof necessary to recover corrective-advertising damages. In doing so, these decisions threaten the economy and ultimately risk negative long-term consequences to American consumers. To clarify the quandary that could result from the current trend in the law governing false-advertising damages, consider the following hypothetical.
The field of organ donation and transplantation has evolved since Albert Einstein’s initial proclamation. The first successful, solid-organ transplant took place in 1954, only months before Einstein’s death. Organ donation and transplantation, as a technical endeavor, can improve drastically the fate of mankind by preventing the needless suffering and death that result from organ failure. However, the rapidly evolving field of organ donation and transplantation is capable of effecting pain and injustice as well. The current organ-donation system fails in its inability to procure enough organs because it operates under the assumption that individuals are not organ donors. This is best illustrated by the following hypothetical.
The New Jersey Supreme Court has a long history of liberally interpreting election laws to “effectuate their purpose” in a manner consistent with the public interest and the statutory scheme. The Court’s recent decision in New Jersey Democratic Party, Inc. v. Samson, however, is a veiled departure from that history. In New Jersey Democratic Party, all seven justices concurred in an opinion that undermined the New Jersey Legislature’s intent to establish mandatory deadlines for creating and filling election vacancies. The Legislature’s purpose for these deadlines was to provide election officials sufficient time to prepare for an election, to protect absentee and military voters, to prevent last-minute political maneuvering that deprives voters of sufficient time to evaluate the candidates, and otherwise to provide for orderly elections.
Now, Therefore, Be It Resolved by the Board of Trustees of Stetson University and the Board of Overseers of Stetson University
College of Law that this resolution be adopted to honor W. Gary Vause for his selfless devotion to the affairs of Stetson University
and the College of Law, his attainment of the highest standards of excellence in the legal profession and within the field of higher education, and to express our appreciation for having been privileged to work with this outstanding individual and his wife.
There was something very special about Judge Jerry R. Parker’s laugh. At his memorial service, every person who spoke mentioned Jerry’s kindness and the gentle laugh that would emerge from this stern figure of a man. The memorial service concluded with Jerry’s own personal message, and in the opening sentences above, you could hear his gentle laugh and see his little smile and tilt of his head. His message, by the way, needed no rewriting or reorganization.
Judge Parker was my friend and colleague for more than a dozen years. I read with interest and respect each of the 723 appellate opinions that he authored during his career. I admired his work ethic and his determination to give all the people his full measure as a public servant. I watched him fight an evil disease with the same dogged determination with which he faced every challenge in life. I marveled at his inner strength, and I miss him very much.
Certiorari is one of the most commonly used writs in Florida’s District Courts of Appeal. However, the scope of certiorari jurisdiction is often misunderstood, and many certiorari petitions are dismissed because the parties have sought review of an issue that is simply beyond the scope of proper certiorari review. This Article addresses the uses of certiorari review in the district courts of appeal and the standard of review applicable to the various types of certiorari. This Article then provides suggestions for writing and filing a winning petition.
It is difficult to ask a party filing an initial civil lawsuit also to choose an appellate court. Trial attorneys are arguably more concerned with jury pools than with the philosophy and differences between various appellate courts. Yet, overlooking this point can be costly. Florida offers different appellate remedies from its federal counterpart, and at distinctly different times.
For instance, the Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure permit immediate appeals of class certification orders. The federal rules do not—appeals are at the federal court’s discretion. As counsel for a newly served class-action defendant, your knee-jerk reaction might be to remove this class-action lawsuit from state court to federal court. Is this wise, however, when your priority is to ensure that this lawsuit does not proceed as a class action? By remaining in state court, you have the immediate right to appeal the class certification order. Unfortunately, this right is not available in federal court. At bottom, then, a party’s failure to consider appellate remedies from a lawsuit’s inception could deprive that party of valuable appellate options. Even worse, ignoring this issue might provide your opponent with appellate rights that otherwise would not have been available.
It has become increasingly rare for an appellate court to grant oral argument for an appeal. In fact, in a small number of jurisdictions, courts will hear an oral argument only when a party requests it or the court actually orders it. Although numerous reasons exist for this diminution in the quantity of oral arguments, the most telling is the crushing workload appellate courts face today.
Not only has oral argument become less common, but the time allotted for oral argument has decreased. In the early 1800s, Daniel Webster argued for the appellant in Trustees of Dartmouth College v. Woodward. The oral argument in that case lasted three days. Today, appellants and appellees are often limited to fifteen minutes or less of oral argument.
Thus, the cases that make it to oral argument typically are the ones that raise “important” or complex issues or include facts that are so complex that the judges or justices on the appellate panel reviewing the briefs encounter enough difficulty that they require clarification. This is indeed a select few of the enormous number of cases that the appellate court reviews, and the appellate party who receives oral argument should treat the situation with the importance that the appellate court accorded it. This Article will explore the importance of oral argument, and will offer suggestions on how to prepare for this critical event in the life of a case.