oxymoron [oksee maw ron] expression with contradictory words; a phrase in which two words of contradictory meaning are used together for special effect
First, there was the vision of Roberts Wilson and his attorney Charles Merkel sitting ringside when Dick Scruggs is in court reminding me of my overly eager former mother-in-law — although, to her credit, a trip to Piccadilly would satisfy her desire for a free lunch. A vision of constructive trust that is not.
Then, there is the matter of mind-boggling dispute reported last week in the Clarion Ledger creating a vision of “granny Bobs” and “nanny” Merkel each with purse in hand. A vision of constructive trust that is not:
The federal government that prosecuted multimillionaire Dickie Scruggs and a former law partner who says he’s owed millions are battling over money paid to sway a judge in Scruggs’ favor.
Defendant Steve Patterson’s Motion to Dismiss, filed by Greenwood attorney Hiram Eastland,, thoroughly dismantles Wilson’s RICO case. Any vision Wilson had of RICO pouring Scruggs’ money in his purse and Merkel’s had to have been, instead, a hallucination.
A vision of “constructive trust” that is not: Continue reading “Constructive Trust oxymoron in Wilson v Scruggs as Eastland dismantles RICO claim”
Right of the bat, we’re going to find out if I cut my 7th inning stretch short. Frankly, what I found when I later turned my attention to the docket of the day to check for any additions in cases SLABBED made me wonder if one day of reflection was going to be sufficient.
Magistrate Judge Parker pitched a Protective Order to State Farm in Lizana and Magistrate Judge Walker tossed the Company another in Montet . Since it took Parker 2 (pages) to do what Walker did in 7, Parker is up first for examination:
State Farm has cited numerous cases within this jurisdiction, with facts and issues very similar to those involved in this matter, wherein protective orders have been entered with respect to the same types of information at issue here. As in those cases, State Farm has demonstrated good cause for the entry of a protective order and, accordingly, the motion will be GRANTED.
Walker said much the same, however:
The court, being duly advised in the premises, finds that good cause exists for the issuance of a Protective Order; therefore, it is ORDERED and ADJUDGED…
Now, a good portion of my 7th inning stretch was devoted to reflecting on “good cause” for a protective order in discovery. I’ve observed that counsel for both parties in a case and the District Court “hang their hat” with the Fifth Circuit and, since I’m neither a lawyer nor an officer of the Court, I decided that I’d follow and hang mine on the 5th’s order quoted in the most recent SLABBED update on Montet which clearly states: Continue reading “What’s the score? 0 – 2 on tail-wagging-dog Protective Orders”
A week from today, August 29, 2009 will mark the beginning of the fifth year following Hurricane Katrina – time for a 7th inning stretch.
Although I had to double down on posts the day before, I had my 7th inning yesterday – reflecting on what I know and don’t know about Katrina litigation and what I need to know to help the slabbed.
“This Court” – the Southern District Federal Court hearing Katrina litigation – needs a 7th inning for reflection as well.
As the storm moved inland and it became possible to assess the damage, there was little doubt a legal storm would follow – that it so quickly became a Category 5 was the only surprise.
Much of the post-Katrina preparation for the legal storm to come fell to Magistrate Judge Walker — largely by default: “One week after the storm, the U.S. Marshals located all of the federal judges on the Gulf Coast and determined that I was the only judge whose home had not been destroyed.”
Katrina litigation began with the Court in a survival mode. Continue reading “What’s the score? Can’t tell – this Court needs 7th inning stretch”