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.

Phizer Leaving New London 5 years after Supreme Court Eminent Domain Ruling is a post from: LegalMatch Law Blog

However, most of the time, for some reason, no matter what we do, it never feels like we’re doing quite enough to please our beloved matriarchs and we always end up feeling like we’re nothing more than a constant source of disappointment to them.  We never call home or visit enough, we’re not eating enough vegetables, and don’t even get started on the career, which can never seem to outshine your cousin’s gig at Google.  It can all be very maddening, sometimes to the point where you wished you just didn’t care as much as you do.  Wouldn’t that be great?  To not care what your mother thought of you?  Well if that’s what you want (not me of course because I have a wonderful relationship with my mom), then you should ask Cheng Saelee.

Why ask him?  Well, because the dude definitely doesn’t seem to have a problem cutting the proverbial cord.  It takes guts to stand up to your mom’s authority, but it takes a really big pair to rob her at gunpoint after she refuses to give you $430 to pay off your parking ticket.

That last part sound a little nuts?  Well it should, but that’s exactly what Saelee, 27, did to his mother back in 2008.  He was convicted last week for the armed robbery of his mother, as well as for illegally soliciting her while he was in jail to drop the charges against him.

I love human drama, as I’m sure everyone does since that seems to be the only thing selling newspapers these days.  His own mother turned him in??  In the words of Dave Chappelle impersonating Rick James, “that was cooold bloodeeeeed.”

But honestly people armed robbery is a very serious crime.  It’s considered a crime of moral turpitude, meaning a conviction has a far greater impact in your life beyond being a huge blemish on your permanent record.  It often can lead to being barred from obtaining membership in and expulsion from government employment and professional organizations – which spreads across the gamut, ranging from the American Bar association to the International Longshore and Warehouse Union.  And membership in these organizations is usually a prerequisite to employment their respective industry.  Moral turpitude crimes are also grounds for deportation, which is a possible fate awaiting Saelee.  Armed robbery is also a felony, which means a conviction will strip you of your right to vote.  And in this economy, having a say about what direction this country should be headed makes having the right to vote all the more important.

For these reasons, it’s easy to see why you shouldn’t commit moral turpitude crimes or crimes in general.  Conversely, it’s also even easier to understand how important it is to defend yourself against a moral turpitude criminal charge.  LegalMatch receives a very high number of criminal defense cases every year, and with good reason (in case you’ve forgotten them, scroll up).

And most important of all, don’t forget that mother knows best and apparently is also not above turning you in to the cops, so please don’t rob her.

Man Robs Own Mother At Gunpoint, Bad Sons Everywhere Can Now Say At Least They Aren’t Him is a post from: LegalMatch Law Blog

Those are the adjectives that the neighbors of British couple Caroline and Steve Cartwright use to describe the couple’s sex life.  Yes, you read that last sentence correctly.  More specifically, the neighbors have been complaining that the noise keeps them up at all hours of the night, thus causing them to oversleep in the morning and make them late for work.  The problem happens almost every night.

So what do they do about this problem?  The neighbors decided to charge the wife with noise violations and seek an abatement, which they subsequently won.  The noisy couple appealed, but despite their best arguments that their Human Rights were being violated, their appeal was denied.  Since the initial ruling, Caroline has been found to be in violation of the noise abatement order three times.

Aside from the humor of this situation, there are some interesting legal issues dealing with noisy neighbors.  According to a U.S. Census Bureau survey, American consistently rate noise ahead of traffic and crime as their primary reason for wanting to move.  LegalMatch has a helpful recommendation for dealing with the problem of unreasonably noisy neighbors: approach them about the problem before seeking legal recourse.

I totally agree with this approach and the rationale that friendly communication should be used before the police and the courts get involved.  After all, theses are your neighbors and if you can salvage a friendship or at least a peaceful relationship then you should try.   There are also simple solutions such as caulking and sealing the edges of windows, doors, and outlets that face the noise source.

If that still doesn’t work, then you may be forced to hire a lawyer to seek your own noise abatement and/or money damages.  So for all you readers who have annoying neighbors who start construction too early, let their dogs bark at all hours, and have loud late-night parties, just think how much worse it can be!

Not Your Ordinary Noisy Neighbors is a post from: LegalMatch Law Blog

Anyway, the reason why I was thinking about my intellectual inadequacies is because sometimes you just see a news story and realize how much there is to know in this world and also how little of it that you actually know.  For instance, is there any reason why regular people like you and me can’t keep chickens as pets?  Because apparently there’s a movement in Ann Arbor, MI to get the city to pass an ordinance that would allow its residents to keep chickens as pets.

Really, is this an issue?  I had no idea there was even a problem with doing this, let alone that it was illegal.  I remember when I was a wee lad my neighbor had a couple of chickens in his backyard.  He’d feed them corn, harvest their eggs, and occasionally even allow them to berth a couple of chicks.  This all wouldn’t be so strange except that I grew up in a major urban California city.  Though I never thought twice about it when I was a kid, I just thought my neighbor really liked fresh organic eggs and playing farmer.

Coincidentally, the organic food movement is what Stephen Kunselman, the Ann Arbor councilman spearheading the move to pass the ordinance, is using as the basis to promote chickens as pets.  Supposedly, fresh eggs are a lot tastier and healthier for you than what you get at the supermarket.

Sounds great right?  Except that a lot of residents and the local Ann Arbor government are clucking (HA, I’m so witty) about the health and safety issues that come with owning chickens.  Apparently there’s a concern that allowing people to keep chickens as pets will encourage or at least not help to stem the spread of avian bird flu – which I hear is pretty nasty.  There’s also the issue of noise disturbance – less we forget what it is roosters are known for besides providing hours of entertainment (I’m joking, please no letters).

Anyway, all this got me thinking about chicken laws in other cities, specifically what’s the penalty for owning chickens?  Well, it ranges from fines to a misdemeanor depending on the circumstances (e.g. number of chickens, sanitation issues, etc.).  For those of you interested in keeping a chicken(s) as a pet(s), I strongly suggest you check your local laws to find out whether it’s legal.  The internet is an amazing place, by the way, so be sure to use it.

Don’t Cluck With My Heart: The Legality Of Keeping Chickens As Pets is a post from: LegalMatch Law Blog

1. Wake him up and tell him to get out
2. Call the police and have them remove him from your home or arrest him
3. Let him be because he’s tired and in the morning make him breakfast
4. Wake him up and beat the crap out of him with the help of two of your friends to the point that your neighbor needs hospitalization

If you picked D and you live in Iowa City, Iowa, then you and your friends would be arrested for willfully causing bodily injury to a person.  How do I know that?  Because that’s exactly what happened to three men who found themselves in that very same situation (see how clever I am?)  By the way, if you picked C please refer me to your shrink/religion/cult/voodoo-method-to-keep-you-calm because I have no idea how anyone would be able to stay cool if they found themselves in that situation.

According to the report, the three men, Jonathan Chun, Derryk Berger, and Kevin Lee, came back to Chun’s apartment after a night of drinking to find Chun’s neighbor sleeping in the apartment.  After they woke him, they proceeded to lay what I imagine to be an incredible beating on their neighbor since he had to be hospitalized afterward.  Chun then reported his neighbor for trespass to the police where he was promptly arrested for willful battery.

Now I’m not saying these three men were justified in their actions, but personally I’d be pretty terrified if I found a person in my house who I didn’t allow to be there, regardless of whether he was my neighbor or if I knew he was a sleepwalker.  However, I’d still fall in the A or B answer category since I’m not insane and also because I know the law.  It’s a wonderful field of study if you want to stay out of trouble.  Someone should’ve suggested taking it up to Chun and his friends because any lawyer or law student worth his salt knows that in a case like this, getting physical can only lead you to a felony.

From a legal perspective, self-defense is only allowed when you are under attack or imminent harm.  And in most jurisdictions, even if you are under attack, if you can escape the harm without resorting to violence, you have a duty to do so – unless the attack is happening in your home, then you don’t need to retreat (the so-call king-of-the-castle rule).

Even though Chun was in his home, his neighbor posed no threat to him since he was sleeping.  Though Chun could argue he felt threatened by his neighbor’s mere presence, most courts have held that trespass alone with the threat of imminent harm is not enough to justify self-defense.  Broad self-defense usage is a common misconception, as evidence not only by national criminal statistics on the matter, but also by the large number of self-defense claims received by LegalMatch every year.

So the moral of this story is: when in doubt, call the police, because they’ll have a much easier time justifying their beatings than you.

Beating Up Unconscious Sleepwalking Trespasser Is Still Illegal is a post from: LegalMatch Law Blog

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.

Most Popular City and County Pages on LegalMatch is a post from: LegalMatch Law Blog

Well, the family of the deceased wife looking to win a Nintendo Wii for her kids sued.  Now after two years of litigation, the jury has finally reached a verdict in favor of the aggrieved family and levied a damage award of $16.6 million to be paid by the radio station.

In case you guys have forgotten about this one (and I don’t blame you as I can barely remember whether or not I brushed my teeth this morning) the woman’s name was Jennifer Lea Strange.  She was a 28-year-old mother of three children who entered into a radio contests in California to win the then very elusive Nintendo Wii (which, by the way, is no longer quite as elusive and cheaper to boot).  The contest required contestants to drink large amounts of water and then hold in their urine.  The contestant who could drink the most water while resisting the urge to use the bathroom the longest would win the coveted video game system.  Strange won the contest, but ultimately and unfortunately lost her life in the strange (no pun intended) process.

Now some of you may be wondering why in the hell would anyone subject themselves to this kind of suffer for what is essentially an electronic toy.  Well, regardless of whether or not you have children, I think everyone (except probably my parents) can all understand the very pressing need to get a person we love that “perfect gift.”

More importantly, however, Strange’s case serves as a reminder to corporations, businesses, and people in general everywhere of why you should think twice before committing poorly thought out acts that can lead to serious harm or death.  And that should you decide to go forward with said poorly thought out act, if you’re a radio station have enough sense to stop and heed the deluge of warnings from your listeners.

The sad truth is LegalMatch receives many wrongful death cases every year, cases that could have been easily prevented but for the negligent actions of another party.  Wrongful death cases are not just incredibly costly from an economic standpoint (i.e. lawyers fees and the potential for incredibly large jury awards for compensatory, punitive, and emotional distress damages), but from a purely human perspective, cases of negligence resulting in serious injury or wrongful death means that a person has suffered deeply and permanently.  And that the harm is not only limited to the immediately damaged party, but also that party’s family.  The toll is emotional, physical, and financial.

So what’s the lesson here?  It’s the same one that my dad has been telling me since I was born: Don’t be stupid.

Negligent Radio Station + Nintendo Wii + Water Intoxication = $16.6m Jury Award is a post from: LegalMatch Law Blog

You remember email, right?  That thing you’ve been using as your main source of written communication since the last decade?  The major form of correspondence that has surpassed old-fashioned snail mail and which is relied upon by everyone from business titans to celebrities, the president, and your aging grandmother (who floods your inbox with those funny grammatically incorrect cat pictures)?  Yeah, that email – it’s no longer protected against searches from the police.

“No, that can’t be right!  Right?  Email?  They are no different than letters you received in the mail; how can they not be afforded the same protection?” Well, apparently if you think like that you’ve been preempted by a federal judge, my friend.

Specifically, this ruling comes down from and Oregon Federal Judge Michael Mosman (I almost typed Michael Madsen; if he gave the ruling I might’ve been less outraged).  Judge Mosman argues that unlike regular snail mail which is handled by postal employees, e-mail should not be afforded the same protection against unlawful searches and seizures under the Fourth Amendment because when an email is sent, it goes through various Internet service providers.  By traveling through these different providers, each email leaves a digital image of itself with each ISP.  And apparently this fact is enough to distinguish email from regular land mail because by leaving a digital copy of itself, emails are in essence open to the ISP to read and monitor and therefore people who send emails cannot expect to have the same level of privacy as when one sends a regular piece of mail through the post office.  Judge Mosman’s full opinion can be read here (please note that the link is to a PDF).

Sound mental?  Yeah, well it should.  Judge Mosman seems to hang his ruling on the notion that because emails aren’t sealed in envelopes like a written letters, people should expect it to be read.  Now to be fair, police would still need a warrant to search through your email.  However, they’ll just need to submit the warrant to an ISP that has your emails to get access to them, thereby completely bypassing you and giving you no notice before invading your private emails.

Now on one hand, Judge Mosman’s argument makes some sense.  Junk mail in the form of post cards and brochures are almost never sealed and the courts have generally viewed these as forms of advertisement and therefore not protected under the Fourth Amendment since it’s argued that junk mail is meant to be seen by as many people as possible.  However, this is also where Judge Mosman’s argument breaks down because private emails aren’t advertisements, but are actual private communications between parties.

“But Andrew, what about the whole issue of emails leaving digital copies of themselves on ISPs and not being sealed like normal letters?”  Well let me answer that question, too, and thank you for asking so kindly.  Though emails are not physical sealed, they are often digitally encrypted to prevent prying eyes from seeing its contents.  Therefore, an analogy can be drawn between sealing and encryption since they both show the sender’s intent to keep their communication private.  Furthermore, like postal workers who we trust not to open our mail, similarly we trust our ISPs not to read our emails.

Anyway, all my ranting is meaningless until someone challenges Judge Mosman’s ruling or the legislature passes a law that gives emails the same protection against unlawful searches and seizures that physical mail enjoys.

So get started people, write your senators and congressmen, just don’t email them – for now.

Email – It’s Fast, Easy, And Now Unprotected From Unlawful Searches is a post from: LegalMatch Law Blog

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.

Data Proves Victims of Assault Likely to Know Their Attacker is a post from: LegalMatch Law Blog

I suppose it’s true for every field of study or vocation.  Doctors probably have their cousins asking them to look at moles and pus-filled gashes.  Astrology professors probably have their aunts pestering them to find Orion’s Belt.  Taxi drivers probably can’t get their siblings to stop using them as a substitute for Google Maps.  The list goes on and on.  And the best part about all of this is that all the people who ask you these questions don’t care whether their question is within your field of specialty.  Resulting in situations like this:

“Hey Phil, what street do I take to get to the Eifel Tower?”

“I don’t know, my taxi only operates in New York.”

Okay, so maybe it’s not as drastic as that, but you get my point.

Anyway, regardless of the absurdity or irrelevance of the question, you always end up answering it to the best of your ability because, hey, what can you do?  They’re your friends and family and you like them (for the most part), which brings me to the point of today’s post.

I was talking to a friend the other day.  Let’s call him Norman because I don’t him to get pissed off at me using his suffering for my work.  Norman is a really nice honest guy.  He’s the type of person to go through his whole life never trying to cause a scene, which is good in some ways, but bad in a lot of others because maintaining that kind of lifestyle often leads to his inability to defend himself.

Anyway, about a couple years ago Norman opened up a small convenience store.  His store was located within a mini-mall in his hometown.  It was a good fit for him because on top of being really nice, Norman is also really laid back and doesn’t like doing strenuous and stressful work.  Before renting out his location, Norman was able to secure the right to be the only purveyor and seller of food in the mini-mall.  The agreement was promised in Norman’s contract with the mini-malls owner.

But last month, Norman neighbor, a Laundromat, put out a soda vending machine in front of his store.  Norman saw this as a violation of the non-compete clause he had in his contract, but when he went to the mini-mall’s owner to tell his neighbor to take the soda machine down, the owner refused.  He claimed that soda is a drink and therefore didn’t count as a type of food so it was perfectly in line with Norman’s contract.  Norman then came to me to see what his chances were to get the soda machine put away.

This situation happens a lot.  Just taking a look at the number of unfair competition cases LegalMatch gets every year is good evidence of the popularity of these types of disputes.  My advice to Norman was the same that anyone knowledgeable in the law would give: it depends.

Basically in most jurisdictions, for non compete clauses to be invalid they have to be overly broad as to be considered unreasonable.  In Norman’s situation, it would seem like his non-compete clause was pretty clear since it outlined a specific limitation that could be reasonably followed (that he’d be the only food store).  And that in my opinion I’d think that he’d have a fairly easy time convincing a judge that drinks can be considered food because it’s something that’s consumed.

But like everything in the law, nothing can be certain.  Because even when all the cards seemed stacked in one direction, a good lawyer can easily make them fall in the other.

Competing With Non-Compete Clauses is a post from: LegalMatch Law Blog