For just the 18th time in baseball history, a pitcher was perfect today. Mark Buehrle was literally perfect. 27 batters. 27 outs. No one reaches first. Unbelievably remarkable.
Is there an equivalent for lawyers?
The SDFLA Blog is dedicated to providing news and notes regarding federal practice in the Southern District of Florida. The New Times calls the blog "the definitive source on South Florida's federal court system." All tips on court happenings are welcome and will remain anonymous. Please email David Markus at dmarkus@markuslaw.com
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteWhich brings me to something that has always bothered me. There is often discussion on what record in sports will not be broken. 56 game hitting streak. 2 Super Bowl wins in a row, Nicklaus's 18 majors,etc.
ReplyDeleteThere is only one unbreakable record I submit:
Johnny Vander Meer of the Cincinnati Reds threw back to back no hitters on June 11 and June 15, 1938.
To break that record, a pitcher would have to throw three no hitters in a row.
That, gentlemen, is the only record in sports which will never be broken.
Not that it is likely, but would back to back perfect games "break" the back to back no hitter record? Or would that just tie the no hitter record and be a separate record as to perfect games?
ReplyDeleteSpecter Proposes Return to Prior Pleading Standard
ReplyDeleteDavid Ingram
The National Law Journal
July 24, 2009
Congress is preparing to wade into the growing debate over the pleading standard for civil lawsuits, after two recent Supreme Court decisions effectively upended long-standing precedent.
Sen. Arlen Specter, D-Pa., filed legislation Wednesday designed to return the standard to what it was prior to 2007, when the Court handed down its ruling in Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly (pdf). That case and another -- Ashcroft v. Iqbal (pdf) from the most recent term -- have raised the standard that pleaders must meet to avoid having their cases quickly tossed.
Specter, in remarks prepared for the Senate floor, accused the Court's majorities of making an end run around precedent with the two recent cases.
"The effect of the Court's actions will no doubt be to deny many plaintiffs with meritorious claims access to the federal courts and, with it, any legal redress for their injuries," Specter said. "I think that is an especially unwelcome development at a time when, with the litigating resources of our executive-branch and administrative agencies stretched thin, the enforcement of federal antitrust, consumer protection, civil rights and other laws that benefit the public will fall increasingly to private litigants."
At issue is how specific a pleading must be under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Rule 8 requires that a complaint include "a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief," while Rule 12 allows for the dismissal of complaints that are vague or that fail to state a claim. Under Iqbal, a 5-4 decision written by Justice Anthony Kennedy, many courts are now requiring more specific facts that, plaintiffs lawyers say, aren't often available until discovery.
Specter's bill (pdf) directs federal courts to interpret the rules as the Supreme Court did in a much earlier decision, Conley v. Gibson (1957). The bill falls within the jurisdiction of the Senate Judiciary Committee and, if considered, would likely be a lightning rod for debate among plaintiffs lawyers, consumer groups and businesses.
This article first appeared on The BLT: The Blog of Legal Times.
I came across the following press release today (this is just an excerpt):
ReplyDeleteMiami-Dade Police Department, today announced that defendant, Carlos Mauricio Abarca, 34, was charged with using a facility and means of interstate commerce to solicit someone he thought was a 13-year old girl for sex, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 2422(b). If convicted, Abarca faces a minimum of 10 years imprisonment, and up to life imprisonment.
According to information contained within the criminal complaint, Abarca began conversing with an undercover investigator from the FL Attorney General’s CyberCrime Unit in an internet chatroom, believing he was talking to a 13-year old girl from Orlando. Abarca began soliciting the “child” for sex and asking her to travel to Miami for a sexual encounter with him. He engaged in sexually graphic conversation with her, and provided a sexually graphic picture as well. He ultimately made arrangements for her to take a bus from Orlando to Miami and was waiting at the bus terminal for her arrival when he was arrested.
Assuming everything above is true, and assuming the "child" was not under age (which appears to be at least implied by the press release), did anything illegal actually happen? It doesn't sound like it to me.
@ Confused Civil Lawyer
ReplyDeleteMaybe this will help (maybe not) --- Police have bad of baking soda. Tell guy that it is cocaine. Guy buys baking soda thinking it is cocaine. It is not illegal to buy or posses baking soda, but it is illegal to attempt to buy or posses cocaine.
@ Confused Civil Lawyer
ReplyDeletesee, e.g., United States v. Morris, 549 F.3d 548, 550 (7th Cir.2008), U.S. v. Hornaday, 392 F.3d 1306 (11th Cir., 2004), U.S. v. Murrell, 368 F.3d 1283 (11th Cir., 2004), United States v. Gagliardi, No. 06-4541-cr (2nd Cir. 10/22/2007) (2nd Cir., 2007)
Hearing not guilty over 100 times and then getting costs and fees of over 500k isn't quite a "perfect game", but it's pretty close.
ReplyDeleteNow, if unethical prosecutors were sanctioned by the bar on top of that . . . that would be perfect.
ReplyDelete