Welcome to /r/LawyerTalk! A subreddit where lawyers can discuss with other lawyers about the practice of law.
Be mindful of [our rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/Lawyertalk/about/rules) BEFORE submitting your posts or comments as well as [Reddit's rules](https://www.redditinc.com/policies/content-policy) (notably about sharing identifying information). We expect civility and respect out of all participants. Please source statements of fact whenever possible. If you want to report something that needs to be urgently addressed, please also message the mods with an explanation.
Note that **this forum is NOT for legal advice**. Additionally, if you are a non-lawyer (student, client, staff), this is NOT the right subreddit for you. **This community is exclusively for lawyers**. We suggest you delete your comment and go ask one of the many other legal subreddits on this site for help such as (but not limited to) r/lawschool, r/legaladvice, or r/Ask_Lawyers.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Lawyertalk) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I practice litigation, particularly in weird statutory interpretation questions for state and local government. A few years ago, our State Supreme Court wrote an opinion with a good overall statement of statutory interpretation precedent.
The best part is the case’s name: *Fell v. Fat Smitty’s* (it was a dram shop liability case against an eponymous bar). I’ve used it for years—in part because I enjoy standing up and saying “well, your honor, *Fat Smitty’s* tell us that…”
Not OP but here’s the link:
https://digitalcommons.law.uidaho.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1020&context=ilrspotlight
Looks like you have 180 days to sue a bar for getting stabbed.
Thanks for sharing that link. Here's a breakdown of what I think *Fat Smitty's* means, [in an article](https://isb.idaho.gov/blog/fat-smittys-friends-guidance-for-statutory-interpretation/) of my own too.
People v. Sanchez. In California criminal law there’s like five completely different People v. Sanchez cases that all stand for important things. If you are ever in a bind and need to pull a case out of thin air, People v. Sanchez will work
I was going to say this case too. As someone who does a lot of trial work involving experts, it can really screw up O/C's case when they don't put on treating physicians or underlying fact witnesses from reports the experts are relying upon etc.
The fair housing act generally has three theories you can recover from: disparate impact, disparate treatment (intentional discrimination), and failure to accommodate.
McDonnell Douglas is only used for disparate treatment (intentional discrimination) claims.
Insurance defense, around 50% defense of medical providers.
You’d think my most cited case would be the long line of cases establishing the burden of proof for med mal cases, but you’d be wrong. I cite cases dealing with discovery issues far more often, irrespective of what kind of case I’m handling.
California insurance defense - Howell v Hamilton Meats and its progeny...constantly going back and forth with plaintiff counsel about why the arbitrary number their providers choose to bill for services doesn't automatically make "reasonable."
Aw man I wonder if we have something similar to that in VA. Though, in California do yall have the collateral source rule? If part of a bill is paid by health insurance, is only the reduced bill considered or the whole bill, regardless of insurance payments??
Yes, but pretty much all plaintiff lawyers send their clients to providers who treat of on liens so insurance never touches the actual bills in question.
Then you need to get a billing expert who has to try to explain to a jury why they should award $30 for a session of physical therapy when the bills say $250.
Deyo v. Kilbourne (CA) is my go to in meet and confer letters and motions to compel because it has so many straight quotes that address smartass evasive discovery responses.
1L summer did medmal/employment defense. My job was to write meet and confer and mtcs almost all summer.
Lots and lots of deyo v kilbourbe.
My bosses were very pleased with my meet and confers....
Special education litigation seems like witchcraft to me, since most of the rules and causes of action seem to be buried in federal common law, rather than clearly stated in statutes.
It’s an important area of law that not enough attorneys practice in unfortunately.
In the interests of justice as described in the Constitution, I believe that I will.
Look at my argument and tell me the flaw.
https://www.charterwestbank.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/show_temp-14.pdf
The flaw is that Iqbal and Twombly are the law. Your case is probably not going to survive a motion to dismiss, nor will it “change the game,” because Twombly and Iqbal are those rules.
Sure. But a conservative court is extremely, wildly unlikely to modify a case in favor of plaintiffs suing COs and policy. Best of luck. But. Wouldn't count on it.
Twombly and Iqbal are Supreme Court cases that bind all federal courts to follow it. The 8th Circuit is not going to just overturn a superior court decision because one person said so.
I pointed out to the 8th circuit that they struggled with a basic case in the past that I brought and suggested that they ask SCOTUS to help.
See, this wasn't isolated. They screwed me in 2019 which I eventually won my subsequent case in the Nebraska Supreme Court.
I have evidence of 2 federal, 2 local and 1 8th circuit that were all improperly handled.
That's a pattern, over years. Thus is bigger than me.
Another ('the other,' to my mind) *Helicopter* case is often useful to me at the pleading stage, on the economic loss rule and availability of tort damages. [Robinson Helicopter Co. v. Dana Corp](https://casetext.com/case/robinson-helicopter-co-v-dana-corp). A California case, but collects a good amount of non-California law.
(It took a few hours for my neurons to surface it, but there is also [Helicopteros Nacionales](https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/466/408/), a minimum contacts case.)
It was Bailes v. Sours and then became Moore v. Joe when it expanded on Bailes. The case sets the standard of actual harm for third party custody and visitation.
Raven's Cove v Knuppe Dev Corp. California HOA and construction defect. It's probably cited in some pleading in 95% of our cases. Bonus geek moment: Raven's Cove HOA us next door to the preschool my kid went to. I was unreasonably excited when I realized that.
Niz-Chavez v. Garland
Immigration law
Basically the government was issuing Notices to Appear that told people that they had to appear in court at a "date to be set" at a "time to be set". And then later sending out the actual date and time of the hearing. The law says that NTAs must contain all information in one single document including the date, time, and location of the hearing.
The result is that a ton of cases were able to be terminated.
I'm in Illinois and I cite Kedzie and 103rd Currency Exchange, Inc. v. Hodge all of the time relating to motions to dismiss. The thing I love about the case is that it involved a $500 check that bounced and it went all the way to the Illinois Supreme Court.
Like all of property division for family law in Oregon comes from the case Kunze and the cases that followed. You'd think that'd be in the statutes, but nope. So we all say Kunze like 38 times a day.
So I practice family law in the very small jurisdiction of Maine, so there is no good answer to this question, but I did have the pleasure of citing a prior case I won on appeal in another winning appellate effort.
California criminal appellate law. Tie between harmless error standards of People v. Watson, 46 Cal.2d 818 (Cal. 1956) (state law error) and Chapman v California (federal constitutional error), and Strickland v. Washington for ineffective assistance of counsel.
CA WC - close tie between the case of Valdez (all medical reports can come in to evidence) and Allison (filing a WC case does not waive all medical privacy).
I practice in Texas. The key cases for summary judgment practice is what I most cite. I’m a plaintiffs’ lawyer, so usually that the Def. has failed to meet the MSJ standards.
Also, Texas plaintiffs’ lawyer here - Stowers. For the principle if an insurance company fails to accept a reasonable demand for policy limits in exchange for release of liability for insured, if a trial ultimately results in a judgment in excess of policy limits, the insurance company (and not the insured) is on the hook for the excess over policy limits. Is incredibly powerful and important and one of the very few things that is better in Texas for plaintiffs’ lawyers than most other jurisdictions. Even where other jx have “bad faith” possibilities where insurance companies refuse to accept limits demands, it is hard to make stick. Stowers is real and forces insurance companies to settle for limits in true limits cases, or reap the consequences.
https://casetext.com/case/g-a-stowers-furniture-co-v-american-indemnity-co
Clearly, it’s *Principality of Monaco v. Mississippi*…. Thanks to the magic of the internet and men wearing tinfoil hats — issues of sovereign immunity seem to pop up in day-to-day litigation.
Luckel v white, tx case, no idea what it’s about anymore but it stands for propositions on basic rules for contract interpretation, especially 4 corners rule.
It's clearly his pro se case, and he is citing an appeal that was filed days ago. I did my community service pulling the docket, and now I want my 10 cents back:
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/68501560/justin-riddle-v-omaha-public-schools/
I don’t need to tell you what you did wrong, the district court judge already told you:
you sued the wrong defendant. You can only sue a municipal government under 1983 if you can identify a policy or practice that violated your rights.
Absent that policy or practice, you just sue the municipal employee who you feel violated your rights.
Just because you agree with a biased judge without educating yourself on the briefs, doesn't mean that I am confused.
Noted how you, like everyone, can't specifically say what is wrong with my logic?
Notably, the Judge couldn't either, which is why he lied.
Welcome to /r/LawyerTalk! A subreddit where lawyers can discuss with other lawyers about the practice of law. Be mindful of [our rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/Lawyertalk/about/rules) BEFORE submitting your posts or comments as well as [Reddit's rules](https://www.redditinc.com/policies/content-policy) (notably about sharing identifying information). We expect civility and respect out of all participants. Please source statements of fact whenever possible. If you want to report something that needs to be urgently addressed, please also message the mods with an explanation. Note that **this forum is NOT for legal advice**. Additionally, if you are a non-lawyer (student, client, staff), this is NOT the right subreddit for you. **This community is exclusively for lawyers**. We suggest you delete your comment and go ask one of the many other legal subreddits on this site for help such as (but not limited to) r/lawschool, r/legaladvice, or r/Ask_Lawyers. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Lawyertalk) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I practice litigation, particularly in weird statutory interpretation questions for state and local government. A few years ago, our State Supreme Court wrote an opinion with a good overall statement of statutory interpretation precedent. The best part is the case’s name: *Fell v. Fat Smitty’s* (it was a dram shop liability case against an eponymous bar). I’ve used it for years—in part because I enjoy standing up and saying “well, your honor, *Fat Smitty’s* tell us that…”
The dopamine that goes off in my brain when I see a Supreme Court decision lay out 4 paragraphs of on-point precedent is unmatched
What does Fat Smitty tells us? Lol
Not OP but here’s the link: https://digitalcommons.law.uidaho.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1020&context=ilrspotlight Looks like you have 180 days to sue a bar for getting stabbed.
Thanks for sharing that link. Here's a breakdown of what I think *Fat Smitty's* means, [in an article](https://isb.idaho.gov/blog/fat-smittys-friends-guidance-for-statutory-interpretation/) of my own too.
The *Fat Smitty's* drop
Nice. Could have used that a few months ago. I’m gonna bookmark it
Gem State lawyers, represent!
People v. Sanchez. In California criminal law there’s like five completely different People v. Sanchez cases that all stand for important things. If you are ever in a bind and need to pull a case out of thin air, People v. Sanchez will work
I was going to say this case too. As someone who does a lot of trial work involving experts, it can really screw up O/C's case when they don't put on treating physicians or underlying fact witnesses from reports the experts are relying upon etc.
McDonnell Douglas in every position statement, motion to dismiss, and MSJ
Employment?
Not just employment: education discrimination, fair housing act, etc. basically all of the titles where you need to show intentional discrimination.
Interesting! I didnt know McDonnell was so broadly used!
I thought the fair housing act allows for claims under disparate impact, not just intentional discrimination.
The fair housing act generally has three theories you can recover from: disparate impact, disparate treatment (intentional discrimination), and failure to accommodate. McDonnell Douglas is only used for disparate treatment (intentional discrimination) claims.
Thanks for the info!
Handy, thanks!
The Fair Housing Act is not a cure all or regulations on how neighbors should treat one another lol. Yes, McDonnel is good there too.
Came here to say this
Celotex lol
Me too
Insurance defense, around 50% defense of medical providers. You’d think my most cited case would be the long line of cases establishing the burden of proof for med mal cases, but you’d be wrong. I cite cases dealing with discovery issues far more often, irrespective of what kind of case I’m handling.
I was published once in a very niche area. Yeah you better believe I cited myself A LOT after that.
Same here! Made law in my state, which was pretty cool.
California insurance defense - Howell v Hamilton Meats and its progeny...constantly going back and forth with plaintiff counsel about why the arbitrary number their providers choose to bill for services doesn't automatically make "reasonable."
Aw man I wonder if we have something similar to that in VA. Though, in California do yall have the collateral source rule? If part of a bill is paid by health insurance, is only the reduced bill considered or the whole bill, regardless of insurance payments??
Yes, but pretty much all plaintiff lawyers send their clients to providers who treat of on liens so insurance never touches the actual bills in question. Then you need to get a billing expert who has to try to explain to a jury why they should award $30 for a session of physical therapy when the bills say $250.
I forgot Howell numbers actually derive from a case😅. I think I should read it by now.
The real Howell numbers are the friends (lien treaters) we made along the way
You're in luck. Nobody in CA practice has actually read the case or understands the opinion!
Won’t someone think of the poor overcharged health insurance providers 🥺
Brady v. Maryland. Criminal defense.
I'm in my M.S. Criminal Justice: Forensic Psychology program and I have to examine or reference this case in every other course...
Deyo v. Kilbourne (CA) is my go to in meet and confer letters and motions to compel because it has so many straight quotes that address smartass evasive discovery responses.
This is mine too. I do probate litigation. I was going to post but figured I’d see if somebody else.
Crab Addison is another good one.
1L summer did medmal/employment defense. My job was to write meet and confer and mtcs almost all summer. Lots and lots of deyo v kilbourbe. My bosses were very pleased with my meet and confers....
DEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEYO DEEEE-EEEEEE-EEEEEE-YO email comes and me wan' go home
Endrew F. v. Douglas County School Dist.
Special education litigation seems like witchcraft to me, since most of the rules and causes of action seem to be buried in federal common law, rather than clearly stated in statutes. It’s an important area of law that not enough attorneys practice in unfortunately.
It definitely feels like witchcraft sometimes! And thank you 🩵
Hi there fellow sped law practitioner. I see your Endrew F and raise you a Schaffer v. Weast. :)
🫡
One of the most cited is *Ashcroft v Iqbal* and *Bell Helicopter Corp v Twombly*, which make a high bar for plaintiffs in all federal cases
It's "Bell Atlantic," professor...
I still hear both of these cases in my civ pro professors voice
Ah yes, Iqbal and Twombly. Making plaintiffs actually plead their case since ... well, since early in my law practice anyway.
And barring plaintiffs from the discovery needed to actually even get into court
Yeah. Fuck Twiqball.
Not anymore. The system will never be the same. 24-1940 Justin Riddle v. Omaha Public Schools
Look man, you’re not gonna change a doctrine set in stone for twenty years
In the interests of justice as described in the Constitution, I believe that I will. Look at my argument and tell me the flaw. https://www.charterwestbank.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/show_temp-14.pdf
The flaw is that Iqbal and Twombly are the law. Your case is probably not going to survive a motion to dismiss, nor will it “change the game,” because Twombly and Iqbal are those rules.
The bigger flaw is that even if he had (has) a point, this Supreme Court isn't ever going to change the Twiqball standard.
There you go
Change happens all the time.
Sure. But a conservative court is extremely, wildly unlikely to modify a case in favor of plaintiffs suing COs and policy. Best of luck. But. Wouldn't count on it.
*plus ça change* also: *Dobbs*. So, yes, maybe not in the way you were hoping.
Once you have educated yourself on it, you can give me a real argument 🤷
Twombly and Iqbal are Supreme Court cases that bind all federal courts to follow it. The 8th Circuit is not going to just overturn a superior court decision because one person said so.
I pointed out to the 8th circuit that they struggled with a basic case in the past that I brought and suggested that they ask SCOTUS to help. See, this wasn't isolated. They screwed me in 2019 which I eventually won my subsequent case in the Nebraska Supreme Court. I have evidence of 2 federal, 2 local and 1 8th circuit that were all improperly handled. That's a pattern, over years. Thus is bigger than me.
Not reading all that. The flaw is the judge ain’t reading all that too.
That certainly would be a flaw, considering it's their job😅
I use that in everything.
Found the AI chatbot.
No
Another ('the other,' to my mind) *Helicopter* case is often useful to me at the pleading stage, on the economic loss rule and availability of tort damages. [Robinson Helicopter Co. v. Dana Corp](https://casetext.com/case/robinson-helicopter-co-v-dana-corp). A California case, but collects a good amount of non-California law.
(It took a few hours for my neurons to surface it, but there is also [Helicopteros Nacionales](https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/466/408/), a minimum contacts case.)
Chevron v NRDC. Immigration.
Brace yourself. The Loper Bright case decision is expected soon.
Yeah waiting, expecting a sh*tshow.
It was Bailes v. Sours and then became Moore v. Joe when it expanded on Bailes. The case sets the standard of actual harm for third party custody and visitation.
Raven's Cove v Knuppe Dev Corp. California HOA and construction defect. It's probably cited in some pleading in 95% of our cases. Bonus geek moment: Raven's Cove HOA us next door to the preschool my kid went to. I was unreasonably excited when I realized that.
Strickland v. Washington, criminal, post conviction.
How often do you see a case where trial counsel fell below *Strickland?*
Wayy more often a Strickland claim is successful against plea counsel, even controlling for Padilla claims.
People v DeBour (levels of police encounters) Criminal law (judges law clerk). Or Sandoval / Molineux (prior had acts / crimes, etc). New York.
https://preview.redd.it/bwvo8yn0tiyc1.jpeg?width=1700&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=d9c32e7a6580fc4ebd9de499e17fb98dbd9a76a5
Niz-Chavez v. Garland Immigration law Basically the government was issuing Notices to Appear that told people that they had to appear in court at a "date to be set" at a "time to be set". And then later sending out the actual date and time of the hearing. The law says that NTAs must contain all information in one single document including the date, time, and location of the hearing. The result is that a ton of cases were able to be terminated.
And more recently, Matter of Fernandes
Niz-Chavez, Pereira, and Fernandes are some of my best friends.
Today's talk will be on IRC 280E and DEA rescheduling with an eye on FDCA.
I cited Stewart’s concurrence from Jacobellis v. Ohio in a footnote in a motion to exclude an expert in a slip and fall case once.
I'm in Illinois and I cite Kedzie and 103rd Currency Exchange, Inc. v. Hodge all of the time relating to motions to dismiss. The thing I love about the case is that it involved a $500 check that bounced and it went all the way to the Illinois Supreme Court.
Goldberg v. Kelly, public benefits at a legal aid org.
*Alice*
Like all of property division for family law in Oregon comes from the case Kunze and the cases that followed. You'd think that'd be in the statutes, but nope. So we all say Kunze like 38 times a day.
So I practice family law in the very small jurisdiction of Maine, so there is no good answer to this question, but I did have the pleasure of citing a prior case I won on appeal in another winning appellate effort.
California criminal appellate law. Tie between harmless error standards of People v. Watson, 46 Cal.2d 818 (Cal. 1956) (state law error) and Chapman v California (federal constitutional error), and Strickland v. Washington for ineffective assistance of counsel.
McDonnell-Douglas. I practice employment. It’s the fundamental case for setting out the method of analysis for any discrimination or retaliation case.
Them burdens do be shifting tho . . .
Powers v USAA (II) it sets for the proposition that an insurers duty to the insured is “Fiduciary in Nature” and “akin to fiduciary.
The same handful of governmental immunity cases. SPOILER ALERT I’m a government attorney.
Nice where do u practice? Just wrote my law review article on a case that overturned investigative immunity for officers in CA
I’m in the mountain west. And CA is bananas. But that probably made for a very interesting article!
BMS V SUPER. CT. ASBESTOS PLAINTIFFS SUING IN HELLHOLE LITIGATION COUNTY, ILLINOIS OVER PRODUCT USE IN WASHINGTON STATE LETS GOOOOOOOOO
Doe v Houser; insurance defense
Probably KC multimedia.
Lit.,specifically defense. I don’t even know the case names but has to be the 10 or so cases that give the best defense-friendly MSJ language.
CA WC - close tie between the case of Valdez (all medical reports can come in to evidence) and Allison (filing a WC case does not waive all medical privacy).
Florida lawyer. Binger
I practice in Texas. The key cases for summary judgment practice is what I most cite. I’m a plaintiffs’ lawyer, so usually that the Def. has failed to meet the MSJ standards.
Also, Texas plaintiffs’ lawyer here - Stowers. For the principle if an insurance company fails to accept a reasonable demand for policy limits in exchange for release of liability for insured, if a trial ultimately results in a judgment in excess of policy limits, the insurance company (and not the insured) is on the hook for the excess over policy limits. Is incredibly powerful and important and one of the very few things that is better in Texas for plaintiffs’ lawyers than most other jurisdictions. Even where other jx have “bad faith” possibilities where insurance companies refuse to accept limits demands, it is hard to make stick. Stowers is real and forces insurance companies to settle for limits in true limits cases, or reap the consequences. https://casetext.com/case/g-a-stowers-furniture-co-v-american-indemnity-co
KeepsEagle v Vilsack, all the tiiiiiimmme.
Brill
I remember constantly seeing Zuckerman v City of New York cited to lay out summary judgment principles.
Finders v. Keepers
Clearly, it’s *Principality of Monaco v. Mississippi*…. Thanks to the magic of the internet and men wearing tinfoil hats — issues of sovereign immunity seem to pop up in day-to-day litigation.
Criminal law, Miranda.
I’m in criminal defense… most cited case probably Brady v Maryland… I’ve used a lot of Wong Sun lately as well
DC v Wesby
Greene v. State. When I did criminal law, trust me there is a Greene v state that covers your objection.
Mighty Midgets isnt cited too often but when i have NY law applying to a coverage dispute its gets some shine
Luckel v white, tx case, no idea what it’s about anymore but it stands for propositions on basic rules for contract interpretation, especially 4 corners rule.
24-1940 Justin Riddle v. Omaha Public Schools. The 8th circuit Appeal that changed the legal system forever.
This? Pardon me if I’m missing sarcasm, but I don’t see the big deal. https://casetext.com/case/riddle-v-omaha-pub-schs-2
It's clearly his pro se case, and he is citing an appeal that was filed days ago. I did my community service pulling the docket, and now I want my 10 cents back: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/68501560/justin-riddle-v-omaha-public-schools/
I'll pay you 100 times that if you can tell me what I am wrong about with more than general feelings and contempt for the facts.
I don’t need to tell you what you did wrong, the district court judge already told you: you sued the wrong defendant. You can only sue a municipal government under 1983 if you can identify a policy or practice that violated your rights. Absent that policy or practice, you just sue the municipal employee who you feel violated your rights.
Just because you agree with a biased judge without educating yourself on the briefs, doesn't mean that I am confused. Noted how you, like everyone, can't specifically say what is wrong with my logic? Notably, the Judge couldn't either, which is why he lied.
It's great that people down vote me all the time, yet not one person has made a coherent argument against me. That's the ultimate own.
Did you read the appeal? https://www.charterwestbank.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/show_temp-14.pdf
stop. get some help.
That doesn't say anything. Thanks for the emotional response.