- Commandments
Monument (From Law.com 2.26.02)
The
Associated Press
The
U.S. Supreme
Court refused Monday to be drawn into the explosive
church-state debate over whether the Ten Commandments may
be displayed on government grounds. The Court declined to
hear an appeal from Indiana's governor, who has been
barred from erecting a monument featuring the Ten
Commandments on statehouse grounds. The Court's action
leaves in place a hodgepodge of conflicting rulings across
the country on the issue.
Full Text
- Links to Recent Stories on-line at Courier-Journal
(2/22 - 2/24)
- Links to Recent Stories on-line at Courier-Journal
Posted on 2/22/2002 (2/7 - 2/21)
- Traffic Tickets Paid On-Line
Feb. 10, 2002
Here's a good one for you. Pay your Louisville and
Jefferson County traffic tickets on-line (for a small
fee). Of course, why doesn't the court system set up
a secure on-line server that takes credit cards and pocket
the profit into the judicial system??
- AL CROSS - CJ Editorial on Redistricting
January
27 - Redistricting win in court may well mean win at
polls
Lawyer Jelsma files for Denton's seat in state Senate
Louisville Lawyer Lawrence Jelsma running for state
senate.
- LBA Web Site Gets Hott... and then it is not (on-line
that is)
2/9/2002
Some of you probably noticed that not only did the
Louisville Bar Association's web site go down last week,
but it went down a naughty path through no fault of their
own. Specifically, the www.LouBar.org
site had some links to the LegalNetwork site which formerly hosted the LBA's site and a
few other legal-related sites in the Louisville
area. Although, the LBA now have their own separate
domain and host, they had a few links to the old site
(such as the attorney directory).
Well, while someone was asleep at the wheel, the
LegalNetwork went out of business and the domain name was
sold. Result - a porn site obtained the rights to
the domain name and have legally
hijacked the link to a nasty little place. Before it
was taken off line, we and others got some pretty irate
emails for our stinky links!
All is well now, and a new site will be up for the LBA in
the coming weeks.
- Lawyer Paul
Paletti's Photo Gallery
From Courier-Journal, 1/27/2002
Louisville attorney Paul Paletti with Sturm Paletti &
Wilson, 713 E. Market St., Louisville, KY was featured in
a story by Diane Heilenman - his reception area serves as
an art gallery. Opening this Friday
through 3/29/2002 is the "Collector's Show"
which will present 60 pictures of contemporary
photographers. The hours are 5 pm to 9 pm.
Some of the artists featured (I have included links to
samples of their work):
- Lawyer Richard
H.C. Clay's Forum Story on Legal Aid
From Courier-Journal, 1/27/2002
Former Kentucky Bar Association President Richard
H.C. Clay had a piece published this Sunday with a call
for strengthening the legal aid program in Kentucky.
"Without meaningful access to our justice system, law
becomes an unfulfilled promise. Legal aid helps
fulfill that promise."
- Identity Theft Number One Consumer Fraud Worry.
Jan. 25, 2002, FindLaw.com
Identity theft was the leading consumer fraud
complaint last year, far exceeding gripes about Internet
auctions and services.
Of the 204,000 complaints compiled by the Federal Trade
Commission, 42 percent involved identity theft, the agency
said Wednesday. The figures come from a government
database that collects complaints from more than 50 law
enforcement and consumer groups.
Other top consumer fraud complaints were problems with
Internet auctions (10 percent), involving goods that were
delivered late or not at all and items less valuable than
advertised; deceptive trial offers and charges from
Internet and computer services (7 percent); and
shop-at-home and catalog offers that failed to deliver or
honor guarantees (6 percent).
- Where
Have all the Family Lawyers Gone?
Long time passing? Every one?
LouisvilleLaw.Commentary
Jan. 24, 2002
I grew up in a small town and remember the days when
doctors made house calls, I could pick up a triple decker
burger at a locally owned "Tinys Drive In", I
could walk to school, and everyone in town knew me as
"Ted's boy". Of course, I would also get a
personal escort home by the local constabulary for my
first speeding ticket and face the wrath of dad rather
than the simple fine at traffic court.
Oh yes. We had a family lawyer too. You know
the one whose office you could stop by unannounced and ask
a legal question and not only get it answered but not
receive a bill in the mail the next day, who would write a
letter to a landlord for you and charge just a few
dollars, and when he did your will he knew the names of
the children without asking (because either he, his wife,
or his children also went to school with your family at
one time or another). And if he couldn't solve the
problem, he served as your gatekeeper to the legal world
and referred you to the specialist.
Who was that person? Is he or she gone? A
recently extinct species of a profession that is now under
attack for not being professional?
Well, during one of my daily commutes, I pondered deep and
weary (while avoiding an accident and the need to go to
one of those 'specialists' in tort law myself) about this
monumental issue. Why does one wonder and ponder
about such issues and not simply accept the status quo
with out the 'ante'. For me it's because as I get older
and approach the mid-century mark, I no longer have those
rose colored shades of youth with the feeling
that my whole life was before me and I would soon be
righting the wrongs and slaying the windmill
dragons. Or to put it simply, most of my life is
behind me now and the chase for the buck now leaves me
breathing heavily and heaving breathily.
That was what led me to wondering about those earlier
days. I have some theories and here are my own darn
thoughts if anyone cares.
First, our ranks have grown geometrically it seems rather
than arithmetically. Even though there seems to be a
lawyer in every family and on every street, we pass the
familiar to avoid the local lawyer whom we may see in
church on Sunday from knowing our personal issues.
Why be embarrassed in front of a friend when you can trust
a complete stranger? Familiarity sometimes breeds
contempt or at least fear.
Second, people seem to associate expensive surroundings
and downtown lawyers to a higher level of competence even
though all lawyers are licensed by the state and
oftentimes graduated from the same law school. Even
though many, many legal problems are not that difficult,
our problem must be unique and special since it is our
problem, and to be assured it is resolved why not pay the
most and travel the furthest to meet that stranger who is
obviously closer to deity on the 23rd tower of a
skyscraper than the local Joe who is in a first floor
shopping center office.
Third, if you don't think the sheer numbers of the
profession and fear of the familiar are not enough, then
take a closer look at advertising which has transformed
the profession into a business with putative
specialists. The Kentucky Bar Association does not
certify specialists in the practice of law, especially in
the area where the money flows like monopoly money -
personal injury law. Therefore, recognition (aka
advertising) and acceptance (of your cases) go far.
The other day I was talking to lawyer (and friend) from
one of the outlying counties. His story was odd, but
one that I have heard before. A practice focused on
wills, powers of attorney, divorce, real estate, and other
odds and ends is getting tougher; not because these are
needs that are not being fulfilled but because the
lucrative cases, you know the personal injury automobile
accident cases, go elsewhere to the tv guys and the phone
book folks. One call to them places you in the hands
of the man feared by the insurance companies. Well,
back to this lawyer - he said he had done some legal work
for a family for years but one day the client had to
cancel an appointment because of an upcoming personal
injury trial. Whoa, was the lawyer surprised when he
learned that the client went for the TV guy.
Of course, do the pros who settle cases in volume do a
service for their clients? I have wondered about that too,
and recently came to a conclusion painfully obvious.
The advertising lawyers have budgets in six figures and up
since television time costs lots of money to reap the
benefits of repetition and the phone book can cost you a
hundred grand per year. That tells me it is business
and the need exists to settle by maximizing use of clerks
and paralegals. Trying cases is counter productive
to the bottom line. And now that creates another
enigma -the insurers know the television lawyers have
their own bottom line and need to settle, not to mention
little trial experience if the case has to be
litigated. Add this to the fact that many jurors do
not like the perceived ambulance chasers which sets up a
bias against the client at trial before one piece of
evidence is heard! Result, advertising may have
turned out to be a windfall to a select group of lawyers
and their media purveyors, but what may have gotten lost
in the shuffle are the local legal foot soldiers who could
easily have handled that case and the client who has a
lawyer who makes less money when the case is tried in
front of jurors who have seen the same advertising.
One final thought. All lawyers know that the mention
of insurance is verboten at trial and can easily result in
a mistrial. If this is true (and it is), how do we
intellectually accept and allow advertising which focuses
on pasting the insurance companies as unscrupulous people
who would rather shred a document than pay a fair
claim. If insurance cannot come in the front door,
then the back door should be closed too. The
slandering of an industry so you can make a profit needs
to stop. I remember Adlai Stevenson's sage advice
regarding political campaigning - "He who throws mud,
has less ground to stand on himself."
Have a good day.
-
Court
News: Statewide Case Numbering System
From the LouBar.Org
The Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC) has directed
the Jefferson County Circuit Court Clerks Office to
implement the statewide case numbering system in order to
comply with the Kentucky Revised Statute which requires
AOC to collect case data for the state of Kentucky.
To comply, the clerks
office has made changes to the case numbering system.
This change became effective January 1, 2002. Below is
an overview of the new case numbering system now in place.
LouisvilleLaw.Commentary - Your Vote Does Count
Jan 26, 2002
The primary and general elections in 2002 will be historic
elections for Jefferson County and set the pace for the
Greater Louisville area for years to come as we enter this
new century.
Why are the races so important? Well, in a
nut-shell.
- Metro Mayor and Council. The county-city
merger will combine a myriad of governmental functions
such as law enforcement, mayor, metro council and
more. Will the old guard from the aldermanic
days (daze?) control this new chamber? Will the
new bloods revive the system and exert their
influence? Will Jerry 'Mayor for Life' win and
assert a strong executive government? Hmmmmmm.
- County Attorney. During this transition,
there will not only be power struggles between the new
council and the new mayor, but legal issues for the
county attorney's office as it grasps with novel and
far-reaching issues from the mundane of office
location to jurisdictional disputes over county and
city services. The process has already started.
The Democratic primary pits incumbent Irv Maze who is
in the middle of the metro-transition against
challenger John DeCamillis. Do the voters change
horses in mid-stream or do they try the new but
untested challenger at this juncture. Well, you
decide.
- District Court Judges. Judicial races
are non-partisan and very uninformative since the
candidates are prohibited from expressing opinions
about issues and cases that may come before them.
The typical election has relied on name recognition,
face time, and a parade of hand shaking without much
information covering their background and
experience. However, district court
is the venue where they are most likely to encounter
the judicial system - traffic violations, probate and
wills, guardians, competency, name changes,
misdemeanors, warrants, small claims court, and more.
- Campaigning
Will you check out the candidates, their
backgrounds, their stands on the issues? Or will
you go with the flow of cards, yard signs, emery
boards, buttons, radio buzz, and tv clips?
Conventional political wisdom dictates the rule of
seven; get your name before the voter seven times and
you may get their vote or the law of the lemmings.
Heaven forbid the name gets clouded with content.
Don't be fooled by the number of signs or ads you see,
all that means is someone has a lot of money to spend.
Think of shoe strings and shoe leather - what about
the candidate that meets you at the fish fry, the
neighborhood grocery, in line at a fast food
restaurant? That's the candidate with a shoe
string budget and is wearing out his or her shoe
leather. Give them a shot; don't shoot them
down. They are simply trying to help you
exercise your franchise to vote; a right that your
parents and their parents died for and why our
soldiers are fighting the terrorists overseas in
Afghanistan. Do your part and welcome the
opportunity.
Remember Florida!
YOUR VOTE COUNTS, but only if your vote is
counted.
Go to the ballot on May 28th! Don't let 'Chad'
Vote for You. And be an informed voter.
- Jefferson County Elections - Lawyers and Judges
Jan. 29, 2002
The deadline for filing is over for lawyers running for
Jefferson County Attorney, Jefferson County District Court
Judges, and one of the Jefferson County Circuit Court
Judges. The Primary Election is on May 29, 2002.
Here are the races in a nutshell:
- Judge Denise Clayton is running unopposed for her
seat in Jefferson Circuit Court, Div. 7. of District.
30.
- All 23 divisions of the Jefferson District Court are
open, and all of the currently sitting judges are
running for reelection.
- Let's
take a look at the district court races that will be
contested in the primary:
- Div. 1: Michael
"Mike" Stevens, Paula
Fitzgerald, Richard Bush, and
Kristin Dawson Henderson.
- Division 12: Angela McCormick Bisig, James
Michael Green, and Donald H. Smith.
- Division 16: Martin "Marty" McDonald,
Richard O'Malley, and Sadiqa "Dee"
Moore.
- For those divisions in which only two candidates are
running and which will be on the ballot in November:
- Division 3: Henry F. Weber and Claude Randall
Prather.
- Division 6: Sean R. Delahanty and Pamela
Rochester.
- Division 10: Sheila A. Collins and John Dyar.
- Division 18: Hugh Smith Haynie and Paul Gold.
- Division 21: Paula F. Sherlock and Joseph W.
"Joe" O'Reilly.
- Division 23: Judith Bartholomew and Robert
Anthony Florio.
- The remaining judges are unopposed for reelection:
Kevin William Delahanty, Michele Stengel, Donald E.
Armstrong, Jr., William "Bill" Ryan, Jr.,
Deborah Deweese, Kathleen Voor Montano, Mathew K.
Eckert, Joan "Toni" Stringer, Stephen M.
George, Virginia C. Whittinghill, Eleanore M. Garber,
Janice R. Martin, Kevin L. Garvey, and Jacquelyn P.
Eckert.
- The Democratic primary for Jefferson County attorney
promises to become a heated affair, with John
DeCamillis challenging the incumbent Irv Maze.
DeCamillis, a 37-year-old lawyer and co-owner of
Deke's, a downtown restaurant, is trying to unseat
Maze, 51, who is seeking a second four-year term.
For C-J Article.
- Metropolitan
Property & Cas. Ins. Co. v. Honorable Robert B.
Overstreet 2001 WL 1635601
Ky.App.,2001. Dec. 21, 2001.
Videotaping IME Case.
Synopsis. Automobile insurer
petitioned for writ of prohibition to prevent the Circuit
Court, Scott County, Robert B. Overstreet, J., from
allowing the videotaping of a medical examination of the insured
and from requiring the insurer
to provide information regarding
orthopedic surgeon's medical practice. The Court of
Appeals, Huddleston, J., held that: (1) as a matter of
first impression, a party does not have an unqualified
right to have an observer or a recording device, such as a
videotaping camera, present in the room for a physical or
mental examination; (2) rather, the party must demonstrate
a compelling need; (3) a compelling need to videotape
physical examination of insured
was shown; and (4) the discovery order to provide business
and financial information regarding surgeon's practice
would not cause irreparable harm.
Petition denied.
- "We hold that a party does not have an
unqualified right to have an observer or a recording
device present in the CR 35 examination room. Rather,
the party who seeks this type of relief must
demonstrate to the court that there is a compelling
need for it. The court shall review each case on its
own facts and exercise its discretion accordingly."
- "In this case, Afterkirk demonstrated a
compelling need to the respondent court and,
therefore, its decision allowing the videotaping of
his CR 35 examination by Dr. Primm was not an abuse of
discretion. First, in the memorandum accompanying his
motion seeking leave to videotape the examination,
Afterkirk states:
Dr. Daniel Primm has the reputation among the
Plaintiff's bar of being biased in favor of Defendants
who frequently hire him to testify on their behalf. He
usually testifies that there is nothing wrong with the
person, or if they are obviously hurt, that it is not
a serious injury, will not affect their future or that
the condition preexisted the accident.
From previous testimony by Dr. Primm, it has been
calculated that Dr. Primm earns between $500,000 and
$750,000 per year doing medical examinations and
testifying.
Next, Afterkirk asserts in his response to the
petition that the same respondent court presided over
another case where the plaintiff was examined by Dr.
Primm and testified, in open court and, subsequently,
in an affidavit appended to the response, that:
3. When Dr. Primm took my history he was very rude and
repeatedly distorted what I told him. He tried to get
me to say things that I had not stated. He was very
intimidating.
4. After he was finished I asked him if I could speak,
he said, "yes, I would like to get a straight
answer from you."
5. One of my problems was with my shoulder. I had
trouble raising my arm. When I told him I had problems
raising it, he grabbed my arms and jerked them up
hurting me.
6. I have walked with a very distinct limp since I was
a child. Dr. Primm stated in his notes that I did not
walk with a limp.
Afterkirk also provides as an exhibit the affidavit of
another plaintiff examined by Dr. Primm, which states
in pertinent part:
*6
4. During the examination Dr. Daniel D. Primm, Jr.
was extremely rude to me and tried to mislead me
regarding my description of my symptoms.
5. During the examination Dr. Daniel D. Primm, Jr.
asked me to perform physical movements which I was
unable to perform such as reaching down and touching
my toes. When I advised Dr. Primm that I was unable to
make such a physical movement he placed his hands upon
me and tried to physically force me to make the
bending movement that he had requested.
6. Dr. Primm never asked me about any of the pain I
was experiencing. When I tried to get him to address
that issue by bringing the subject up, he abruptly
turned away from [me] and walked out of the room
concluding the examination without further discussion.
7. Subsequently Dr. Primm reported that I was able to
make such movements and wrote a report contradicting
my physicians' findings, particularly stating that I
was able to work a full five day work week.
8. Had the examination been videotaped the above
information could easily be verified and Dr. Primm's
mistreatment of me would be evident.
Dr. Primm has denied the allegations. In view of such
conflicting reports of what took place during previous
CR 35 examinations by the same physician, we conclude
that the respondent court crafted a sound and wise
decision under the circumstances, one that might
eliminate what Afterkirk calls a "swearing
match" between doctor and patient, and one best
fashioned to protect him, Dr. Primm and the integrity
of the process. The record of the Sexton action
did not include any "valid" or
"cogent" reason supporting the court's
appointment of a physician other than Dr. Primm, and
this Court determined that the "outright
rejection of Dr. Primm ... [was] an abuse of that
discretion for lack of proper legal basis."
- Discovery order requiring automobile insurer
to provide business and financial information
regarding orthopedic surgeon's medical practice for
the past twelve months would not cause irreparable
harm to the insurer
and, therefore, would not entitle the insurer
to a writ of prohibition in connection with medical
examination of the insured;
only the surgeon could raise the argument of
burdensome discovery, but had not been served with a
subpoena duces tecum.
-
Travis v. Travis 59
S.W.3d 904, Ky.,2001.
Nov. 21, 2001
Dissolution of marriage proceeding was brought. The Lyon
Circuit Court assigned $20,560.44 to husband as his
nonmarital portion of $63,000 in insurance
proceeds received following fire that destroyed marital
residence. Wife appealed. The Court of Appeals reversed
and directed that only $7,500 be assigned to husband as
nonmarital share of proceeds. Husband sought discretionary
review. The Supreme Court held that husband failed to
rebut presumption that disputed insurance
proceeds were marital property.
Affirmed.
-
Amelkin v. McClure, 2001
WL 1663996
W.D.Ky.,2001. Dec. 20, 2001.
Attorneys, chiropractors, and proposed newsletter
publisher brought suit challenging constitutionality of
Kentucky statutes restricting disbursement of motor
vehicle accident reports, and allowing state custodian to
charge reasonable fee for producing copies of nonexempt
reports. The District Court, permanently enjoined
enforcement of statutes. State officials appealed. The
Court of Appeals, 168 F.3d 893, affirmed in part, reversed
in part and remanded. Certiorari was granted. The United
States Supreme Court,528 U.S. 1059, 120 S.Ct. 630, 145
L.Ed.2d 507, vacated and remanded. On remand, the Court of
Appeals, 205 F.3d 293, vacated and remanded. On remand,
parties moved for summary judgment. The District Court,
Heyburn, Chief Judge, held that: (1) statute did not
implicate plaintiffs' First Amendment free speech rights,
and (2) statute did not violate plaintiffs' equal
protection rights.
State officials' motion granted.
|
