Law Blog

June of 2005. Mariah Carey’s We Belong Together was number 1 on the Billboard charts. Batman Begins was the number 1 movie at the box office, for the second week in a row. The U.S. Supreme Court had just decided a case called Kelo v. City of New London.

This was one of those rare Supreme Court cases that grabbed the public’s attention.

And why not? Its facts hit close to home for a lot of people: private homes and small businesses were bought by the government, without the owners’ consent in some cases, and demolished, in order to build a new business district (with a corporate campus for the Phizer drug company being the centerpiece), with the hopes of revitalizing an economically depressed city. Some owners brought their case all the way up to the U.S. Supreme Court, arguing that the government’s eminent domain power under the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution (“private property [shall not] be taken for public use, without just compensation”) did not extend to the taking of private property, for the purpose of transferring it to another private party (in this case, Phizer and some private developers), and that “public use” meant that the land taken must actually be used and owned by the public.

The Supreme Court, in a 5-4 decision, disagreed, and found that the taking served a “public purpose”, in that the new development would attract businesses, create jobs, and increase tax revenue, which would be used to expand or maintain public services. As a result, the taking went forward, the last few holdouts were removed, and the complex was built.

The reaction to this case was almost universally negative, across the political spectrum. Conservatives and libertarians argued that it allows governments to take private property for almost any reason, with barely a pretense of the taking serving some public necessity. Liberals argued that the decision amounts to a handout to any big private developer which happens to have some political connections. In short, the decision made almost nobody happy. As a result, many states passed laws limiting the use of eminent domain by local governments.

Being almost 5 years old, this case hasn’t garnered much attention lately, until now. It was just announced that Phizer is closing the facility that was the center of this dispute, taking with it 1,400 jobs, and leaving a vacant office park and a bunch of empty lots where homes and businesses used to be.

What does this say about the merits of the Kelo decision? Well, from a strictly legal standpoint, not much. The Supreme Court, if it ever decides to revisit the issues raised in Kelo, would probably say that it doesn’t matter what happens after the fact, even if the taking ends up not benefiting the public in any significant way. After all, developers and governments can’t see the future.

As a practical matter, this might be an indication that governments aren’t very good at making these kinds of decisions.

However, if LegalMatch case statistics from the last 12 months are any indication, the average person probably has little reason to fear the government swooping in and condemning their property. According to our data, relatively few clients sought lawyers for eminent domain issues in the last year. Of those, a plurality of cases are still in their early stages (the property has been appraised or the government has made an initial offer to buy). At this point, it is far from a sure thing that a taking will actually occur.

This may reflect more the changed state of the economy (not too good, in case you haven’t noticed), and less a governmental policy switch on the use of eminent domain.  Stay tuned.

Based on some stats compiled by our trusty IT department, we’ve learned that of all of LegalMatch’s city and county pages across the United States, locations in the South, particularly the Southeast, generate the most interest among prospective LegalMatch clients.

For example, LegalMatch’s article on Fayetteville, North Carolina appears to have generated the most interest so far in 2009.

Also extremely popular are articles about lawyers in Bell County, Texas, and Broward County, Florida.

As past blog posts have mentioned, many areas of law that prospective clients are interested in (wrongful termination, bankruptcy, etc.) might be indicative of the current state of the economy, so it is also possible that the geographic regions are also a reflection on the economy.

Common wisdom is that small towns and rural areas have been hardest-hit by the current recession. While a person is not likely to be able to litigate themselves out of poverty, sometimes, when someone has lost their job, or is facing foreclosure on their home, another party has acted wrongfully, and they are entitled to redress.

Another reason why smaller markets in general (not particularly in the South) are a rich source of pageviews might be the fact that there are simply fewer lawyers in those areas than in big cities. For example, if you do an internet search for “New York Lawyers” or “San Francisco Lawyers,” you’re going to get a huge number of results, simply because there are a huge number of lawyers in those cities.

On the other hand, in a small town, with the legal market dominated by small firms and solo practitioners, doing a search for lawyers in those areas tends to bring up a LegalMatch article.

This is good for both lawyers and prospective clients in those areas – prospective clients, when they do a search for lawyers in a small town, rather than finding hundreds of websites for firms that may or may not be taking new cases, they come across the LegalMatch page for that town, where they know that there will be lawyers who have affirmatively indicated that they are taking new cases.

We often hear that victims of violent crime are more likely to know their attackers than to be the victim of a random act of violence. LegalMatch case data, covering intake reports from all 50 states over the past 12 months, appears to bear this out.

According to our case data, the most common responses prospective clients gave when asked about the identity of their attacker was “someone I know” or “a family member”.

This runs contrary to the image that many members of the public have with respect to violent crime; a crazed stranger jumps out of the bushes, assaults their victim, and runs off. While random acts of violence certainly occur, they are comparatively rare, and it seems that many people spend a disproportionate amount of time worrying about them, given how unlikely they are to occur to a given person.

This is not to say that people shouldn’t take common-sense precautions to reduce the risk of violent crime committed by strangers. These include minimizing time spent alone, outside, at night. Other measures, such as traveling in groups, and sticking to well-lit areas, are also advisable. It might also be helpful, if you are comfortable doing so, to carry some kind of non-lethal defensive weapon, such as pepper spray (but be sure to check your local laws on this).

However, what might be overlooked are conditions that could lead to the more likely scenario: violent crime committed by acquaintances or family members of the victim. The ways to minimize these risks are not nearly as simple as the ones discussed above.

There aren’t many clear-cut ways to avoid violent crime by acquaintances, unless you want to become a hermit. Since that isn’t an option for most people, the situation is complicated.

Not being in a position to give relationship advice, this should be taken with a grain of salt, but it seems that things such as relationship counseling and getting out of abusive relationships (easier said than done) would be helpful in reducing such incidents. Eliminating violent crime altogether is not possible, but any reduction is a good thing.

According to our internal traffic statistics, it appears that one of the most popular law library articles on our website is about wrongful terminations.

Does this mean that your employer is going around firing employees left and right, just for fun? Probably not…unless you work for this guy.

More likely, the current state of the economy (in case you haven’t heard, it’s not doing too hot right now) has led to many people losing their jobs, with no sign that the bloodletting of employment is going to abate anytime soon. When someone loses their job, especially if it’s for economic, and not performance-related reasons, they are understandably upset.

However, the vast majority of terminations are perfectly lawful. In virtually every state in the U.S., employment is “at-will,” meaning that the relationship is completely voluntary, and dependent on the mutual consent of both parties. This means that employees can quit their jobs at any time, and that employers can fire them at any time, for any reason, or for no reason at all.

There are exceptions, however. For example, under federal law, and the laws of almost every state, it is unlawful to fire or refuse to hire a person because of their race, color, religion, national origin, sex, or disability (if it can be reasonably accommodated). Also, if the employee is working under an employment contract, they can only be terminated pursuant to the terms of the agreement.

Whether your termination is ultimately found to be lawful or not, it is not a bad idea to speak with an attorney if you suspect that improper motives colored your employer’s decision. It’s better to talk with an attorney for a few minutes and have them tell you that you don’t have a case, then to sit on your rights, and let a valid claim for wrongful termination slip through your fingers.

Many people seem to recognize this, and are using LegalMatch to help.

If you’ve been watching cable news, you’re probably aware of the “Birther” movement – a loose coalition of individuals and organizations promoting the idea that Barack Obama is, for one reason or another, not constitutionally eligible to serve as President.

They make a variety of factual and legal arguments to support their conspiracy theories. The most common “factual” (a term I use loosely) argument they make is that Obama was not actually born in Hawaii, as is widely accepted. Instead, they claim, he was born in a foreign country (usually Kenya). Of course, they ignore that a Certification of Live Birth has been released, and confirmed to be accurate by the relevant officials in Hawaii.

Others concede that he was born in Hawaii, and rely on dubious legal arguments to support their claims. Some claim (usually without citing any supporting authority) that, in order to be a “natural born citizen” under the meaning of the U.S. Constitution, both parents must also be citizens of the United States. To be fair, the Supreme Court has never firmly ruled on what it means to be a “natural born citizen” under the meaning of the Constitution. So, the birthers have simply settled on their own definition, to the exclusion of all other possible definitions.

To support this point, they often rely on the writings of a Swiss political philosopher named Emerich de Vattel, author of the 1758 book “The Law of Nations.” This tome was apparently quite influential in the early development of international law, and it advocates the idea that, for a person to be a “true” citizen of a nation, both of his or her parents must also be citizens. There’s just one problem: no evidence suggests that this work particularly influenced the framers of the U.S. Constitution when they were drafting that document. Even if it did, a Swiss book on political philosophy is not binding legal precedent in the United States.

None of this has stopped a dentist/lawyer named Orly Taitz from filing a lawsuit challenging President Obama’s eligibility to serve.

The result? The case was dismissed almost immediately. However, Ms. Taitz continued to file motions, and, after repeated warnings from the judge, was slapped with a $20,000 fine for misconduct, noting that she made no coherent legal arguments, and that her briefs and motions read more like political manifestos than court documents.

It should be noted that one of the best things about this country is the fact that you can say almost anything about anyone, especially elected officials, with relatively few legal ramifications. However, that does not mean that you are guaranteed a platform to air your views, or that you get to use the courts to air whatever crazy idea happens to pop into your head. If that were the case, I’d be in court right now, arguing the merits of hamburger earmuffs.

In the end, we should all remember that the courts are a place to settle genuine legal disputes, and the non-issue of Mr. Obama’s citizenship is not one of them. Ms. Taitz has every right to express her political views in any number of ways. She could buy space on a billboard, she could run spots on the radio, or she could simply make like this guy.