Sometimes the Little Guy Wins

Not that you were asking but do you (gentle reader) know why I got into law?

First and foremost, it was to help the little guy.  

More to the point, to help those who didn't know how to help themselves.  

Overly opressive landlords, power hungry employers, school bullies, tyrant police officer - I just wanted to help alieve the pain aflicted by others on people who couldn't didn't know where else to turn - and I did a pretty good job of it until I couldn't and then I found other ways to help.

Like writing a blog about law and legal stuff to help people know where to go to get more information on their problems.

So, it weighs heavy on my mind when I read stories about people being oppressed.  Note that's "oppressed,"  not entitled.  There are a whole lot of people out in public land that think they deserve retribution simply because they breathe oxygen.

Jerry Hartfield is not one of those entitled ones.

See, back in 1976, Eunice Lowe - a white woman - was found murdered and sexually assaulted at a bus station where she had worked in Bay City, near Houston.  Hartfield, a black man from Kansas, was quickly arrested because his fingerprints were on a Dr. Pepper bottle found at the station.  

You know, I'll bet other people's fingerprints were found at the crime scene but were they arrested?!  Bunch of hicks, they were.

Anyway, and shortly after his arrest, Hartfield confessed to the crime.  That's "confessed" as in coerced.  Also how in blazes can a black man with an IQ in the 50's or 60's be said to be able to understand how to confess to anything?  Regardless and consequently, Hartfield was convicted by a jury of his "peers" and was sentenced to death.

On Sept. 17, 1980, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals ordered him retried because prosecutors had improperly dismissed a juror over her reservations about the death penalty.  However, instead of holding a new trial, prosecutors tried (for three years) to convert Hartfield’s death penalty to a life sentence. 

Uh huh.

They failed in that endeavor so, in 1983, the Texas appeals court again ordered a new trial - which never happened. 

In 2006, with the help of a fellow inmate Hartfield filed a writ of Habeas Corpus and seeking a speedy trial which the court(s) rejected.

After years of being bounced around, Harfield turned to the federal system in 2009 to clear up many of the obstacles that were impeding his case.  

However, in 2011, a federal judge rejected Hartfield’s claims because, the judge wrote, Hartfield had failed to exhaust his state remedies.

Are you kidding me?  A comedy of errors this was!

In 2013, 30 years after it had ordered Hartfield to get his new trial, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals acknowledged at last that Hartfield had been improperly imprisoned for all those years. But it, too, refused to order him released or retried.

Oh, the humanity!

Finally, in August 2015, Hartfield FINALLY got his second trial.  The problem was that two key witnesses who had testified against Hartfield in 1977 had died, so their original testimony was read into the record annnnd, Hartfield's attorney could not be cross-examined.

Other problems that affected this second trial was that none of the physical evidence — the pickaxe that was allegedly used in the murder, a car allegedly used by Hartfield, or DNA from the victim — was still around and jurors could not hear mitigating evidence from Hartfield’s family since most of them had also died. 

Of course none of that mattered because the jury convicted Hartfield again for murder.  However, this time, Hartfield's attorneys were on the ball and appealed this decision for violating Hartfield's right to a speedy trial under the 6th Amendment (note: he had been already incarcerated for the better part of 30 years!).

The Texas appeals court agreed and after 35 years, Jerry Hartfield was released.

But all's well that ends well, right?!

Yeah, no.  All the legal wrangling, all the judicial missteps, all the dinking around with a person's life only goes to show how messed up this legal system of ours is.  

I mean, Jerry Hartfield not only splipped throught the proverbial cracks of the legal system - he was royally screwed out of a third of his life! 

I suspect that if there's a silver lining to all this, it's that Jerry got his day in court and the system finally worked in his favor.  Thirty-five (35) years late but at least the court system finally got its act together.

Good on that. 

Not the brightest bulb

Have you ever come across a person who thought they knew everything about everything but what they don't know is that they don't know anything about anything but have the confidence of someone who does know what they're talking about?

As it turns out, there is a condition called the Dunning-Kruger Effect that covers this concept.  

Essentially, The Dunning–Kruger effect is a cognitive bias in which people with limited competence in a particular domain overestimate their abilities.  Basically, they don't know what they don't know but hold out that they know everything about everything.

You've seen these people.  Uncle Bob gets wasted at Thanksgiving and starts to pontificate about thing political like he's a well-versed pundit.   

Neighbor Alice drones on about how to properly grow flowers despite the fact that she has a brown thumb (i.e. kills everything).

 

Still unclear?  Some other examples might help identify these types of people, for example:

• A new employee who has only a basic understanding of a task might believe they are an expert and refuse feedback or further training, leading to mistakes and poor performance aaaaand, subsequently, gets fired.
• A manager (hired as a manager because of their relationship to a family member) who lacks experience in what a company/employees actually do makes poor decisions due to overconfidence impacting team morale and productivity.
• A person who’s watched a few episodes of a cooking show decides to host a 10-person dinner party with a five-course French menu winds up making hamburgers and soggy "french" fries.
• A non-technical startup founder insists on coding the company's website using only YouTube tutorials resulting in a site that is buggy, slow, and not secure.
• A new driver right out of high school who has only driven a car in a video game overestimate their actual driving skills and take unnecessary risks.
• A new law school graduate opens a solo practice and takes on a complex case, believing it’s “just filling out forms.”

It is to this last one that our story proceeds.  Years back, I had an buddy who had a wife who had money to burn.  Acquaintance (who had just graduated from law school) convinced wife to help him open a law office complete with flashy new furniture and an impressive library (think small Library of Congress).

Nary three (3) months into his law "practice" and without any law experience, Buddy calls me (who had, at that time, about a year of legal experience under my belt) asking for help.  Seems Buddy had taken on an appeal, taken a retainer, and promised client 100% success.   

Apparently, Buddy had convinced client that by virtue of his graduating from law school AND having a fancy law office AND throwing around classic Latin terms like res ipsa loquitur, de novo, habeas corpus, and actus reas, that Buddy knew everything about how to appeal a case.  

Buddy didn't but client didn't know that (and, clearly, neither did Buddy).

I don't know if you know, but appellate cases are much harder (and more costly) to represent than trial cases for a number of reasons, including:

• Appellate law is more technical and research-heavy. You're arguing about legal principles, statutory interpretation, constitutional issues, etc.—not just facts.
• Briefs must be meticulously researched and crafted, and oral arguments involve intense questioning by a panel of judges.
• Appellate deadlines and formatting rules are rigid. A missed deadline or a procedurally deficient brief can sink your appeal, no matter how valid the issue.
• You must often identify “preserved errors”—issues objected to during trial. If something wasn’t preserved, it's often waived on appeal.
• Appellate courts only review the record from the trial court. You can't introduce new facts, so if something wasn't brought up or preserved at trial, it's gone.
• Trial strategy is often collaborative with witnesses, experts, and clients. In appeals, it’s often just the attorney and the law.
• Unlike trial, where emotional appeal and charisma can sway a jury, appellate work requires pure logical reasoning and legal precision. It's a more academic form of advocacy.
• You're persuading experienced judges, not laypeople. They will spot weak arguments instantly.
• You often start from the position of defending a losing argument (if you’re appellant) or protecting a lower court win (if you’re appellee).
• Because trial court judges don't like having their decisions overturned, they are (often) careful how the trial is conducted.  Consequently, the majority of trial court decisions are affirmed (meaning you'll often lose and look bad in front of a now angry client).

The problem here was that Buddy was clueless about how the legal process worked and needed help with his 5th amended brief (the court was kind but patience was wearing thin).  To provide added clarity, the client had started the appeal process and already had had to do 3 amended briefs before encountering Buddy.

Reaching out to me, Buddy wanted me to re-write the brief.  Now, I had never done appellate work.  In fact, the closest I had ever come to appellate court was sitting in the gallery listening to oral arguments.  So, even though Buddy was offering me $80 an hour (remember wife with deep pockets?), I was not willing to help out or put my stamp anywhere near that case.

Consequently, Buddy and the case was bounced out of appellate court and Buddy, consequent to narrowly avoiding a malpractice action with some more well-placed legal terms, quickly down-sized his law office (moving into a closet), and wound up helping neighbors and friends on more simpler cases.

The moral to this story: if ever you are in need of a legal expert, hire someone who knows what they're supposed to know.  

• Been in a car accident?  Hire an attorney with experience in car accidents.
• Need help drafting a Living Trust or durable power of attorney?  Hire an estate planning attorney.
• Having problems with the IRS?  Hire a tax attorney (i.e. someone with accounting and legal experience).
• Looking to get a divorce?  Hire a family law attorney.
• Looking to file a bankruptcy?  Hire an attorney familiar with bankruptcy in your jurisdiction.
• Looking to avoid ICE and want your very own (and legitimate) green card?  Hire an immigration attorney.
  

Now, you could represent yourself by buying a book about what it is you're trying to do from Nolo Press or looking at You Tube videos, but would you really try to build a house not knowing the difference between things electrical and things plumbing?

Yeah, me neither.

Do over

Have you ever wondered, what with all the lawsuits filed and appealed and sent through the system, exactly how many times appellate courts get reversed by the SCOTUS?  

So, picture it, someone sues another person in federal court, the case gets appealed and then appealed again to the Supreme Court of the USA.  What percentage of cases get reversed when the case goes from the Federal appellate court to the SCOTUS.

What got me thinking about this was when I read a recent opinion (Small v. WellDine Inc.) sent from the 4th Circuit court of appeal in North Carolina.  Seems a pharmacist had made a mistake when filling a prescription.  Seems the pharmacist had filled sent the wrong pills to the wrong person.  Seems the person who got the wrong pills didn't bother to look at the label before taking the pills resulting in the patient's death six weeks later.

The court, in it's decision, noted that failure to read the label on the bottle of pills was not contributory negligence as a matter of law meaning that (and it was the defendant's contention that) the patient should have read the label of the bottle before popping the pills.

This brings me to the original point.  See, on first read, my inner lawyer swelled up and I was thinking what dimwit doesn't read the label of pills before taking them?  If nothing else, I'll read a label simply to know how many pills to take and when.  

Also, has anyone ever gone for a physical and the doctor starts asking what drugs they take?  I don't take anything right now but for a while I had one that was particularly difficult to remember (let alone pronounce) and I had to call the wife to find out what it was I was taking - and when.

The point is, everyone reads labels.  Not reading a label is foolish and in my estimation, the court was a bit too liberal in granting the appeal.  Which brings me to my point - what percentage of cases that get appealed to the SCOTUS are reversed?  According to Ballotpedia, since 2007, the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals has been reversed only about 56% and, according to the chart below, it was reversed only about 50% since 2018.  Not bad.

SCOTUS decisions by circuit, 2018
Court	Decided	Affirmed	Reversed	Percent Reversed
First Circuit	2	1	1	50.0%
Second Circuit	5	1	4	80.0%
Third Circuit	3	1	2	66.7%
Fourth Circuit	4	2	2	50.0%
Fifth Circuit	4	2	2	50.0%
Sixth Circuit	7	4	3	42.9%
Seventh Circuit	1	0	1	100%
Eighth Circuit	4	1	3	75.0%
Ninth Circuit	14	2	12	85.7%
Tenth Circuit	2	1	1	50.0%
Eleventh Circuit	7	4	3	42.9%
D.C. Circuit	3	2	1	33.3%
Federal Circuit	4	2	2	50.0%
Armed Forces	0	0	0	0%
State Court	11	2	9	82.0%
U.S. District Court	3	1	2	66.7%
Original Jurisdiction	0	N/A	N/A	N/A
Total	74	26	48	64.9%

---

Well, not as bad as...say the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal which holds the current record of 85.7%.  Can you say ouch?!  

If I were a sitting judge knowing that my decisions are so out of whack with the law that over 80% of my decisions were being reversed, I'd be going to work with a paper sack over my head.

So, why is this important?  I suspect it's more of a curiosity than anything but if I were filing suit in federal court, I'd want to make sure that if there were a possibility that the case might be appealed, I'd want to try my case in a court that had a better track record than the 9th circuit court of appeal.  I'm just saying.

Anyway, always good practice to keep a weathered eye on how the courts are deciding cases because you never know when you'll need an ace up your sleeve.

That's NOT pocket change

Do you know how much it costs to have a case be appealed in a federal court of appeal?  

In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1913, that cost is $500.  Not a lot but when you don't have it, it's a whole lot of what you don't have.

Now, with all that it costs to take a case to appeal, imagine, if you will, you are sitting in your house, door closed, and the police knock on your front door.  Little, piggie, little piggie, let me come in they shout.  

You say, "No dice, go away."  Your roommate, who is outside the house, tells the police that they can go in.  

You, again, insist that no, the police can't come in.  Police ignore you, they break a window to reach the inside lock, open the door, taser you to the floor and start to search for contraband inside your house.

Sound like fun?  Well, Ryan Bonivert didn't and after the police did all that to him, he filed a case against the City of Clarkston, the County of Asotin and the police who broke down his locked door.  

The case turned on whether the statement by the roommate that the police could enter was sufficient to overrule the objection of the other resident.  The lower court said yes and granted the defendant's summary judgement motion.

Upset that he lost, Mr. Bonivert decided to appeal his case (Ryan Bonivert v. City of Clarkston, Case Number: 15-35292) and filed a 42 USC § 1983 (civil rights action) based on the fact that the police violated his 4th Amendment rights (what with the tasering and breaking of his front door, etc). 

What is particularly annoying about this case is that it took a whole bunch of money for someone to write:

An open door says, 'come in,' the poet Carl Sandburg once wrote.  If a door is open and you want it open, why shut it?  The corollary, of course, is that a locked door says "stay out," and a shut door certainly does not say, "come in"...we hold [therefore] that the officers [were] not entitled to qualified immunity...Simply put, a reasonable officer would have understood that no means no.

WOW, is that deep, or what?  No means no.  If you tell the police NOT to come into your house and you're not a parroled felon OR there are no weapons present OR there is no apparent emergency to require a warrantless entry, then stay the #$@#$!@$ out of my house!  

Of course, it took how many thousands of dollars and months/years to reach that decision?!

Sad that the trial court isn't able to grasp that when someone says STAY OUT OF MY HOUSE, that that does not mean police should be permitted to do whatever they want.  

I mean, are these trial court judges prohibited from reading established case law?  Do they not have clerks telling them what the law is?  Why in blazes did this case have to be taken up on appeal?!?

I suspect the moral to this story is keep your doors locked and when the big, bad wolf comes knocking on your door, stand your ground and don't open it for anything!

If at first you don't succeed

Have you ever come up on something so difficult it feels like you're just banging your head against the wall?  Nothing you do seems to work.  Everything is out to get you to fail.  Then, just as you're about to quit...things start to fall into place.  You see vistas where once there were stumbling blocks.  All is easy sailing until...you hit the next wall and it starts all over again. 

That's kind of what the litigation process is like for a lot of people.  You file a complaint, do discovery, go to trial, everything is going relatively well and then you hit a wall - or, in the case of litigation, you lose your case.  Dang but your argument sounded so solid.  You knew you'd win.  Your friend's told you you should win.  Heck, you mother's brothers' cousin twice removed told you you should win.  But you lost.  What to do, now?  Quit?  Run away. Well, you could but some determined people move on to the appeals process.

Appealing a case is the process were people go when they don't get the result they wanted at the trial level. There are at least three key stages to the appellate process: notice of appeal, requesting the record, writing the brief, and arguing your case (optional).  The notice of appeals is critical because it is the point where you tell everyone that you're going to appeal your case.  A great resource that can help you with the notice and record stage is California Civil Appellate Practice (CEB; Notice: Chs. 7 & 10, Request Record: Ch. 9).  Other resources that can help include:

• Witkin California Procedure (West; vol 9)
• California Forms of Pleading and Practice (Lexis; Vol. 5)
• California Jurisprudence, 3rd (West; Vols. 4 & 5)

The two hardest stages of the appellate process (for many people) is the writing of the brief and arguing the case.  Luckily, your local county law library will have resources that can help you with both.  First, there's California Civil Practice: Procedure (West; Ch. 40) and then the California Rules of Court (West; Title 8 - Appellate Rules).  Also, you're going to want to check out California Civil Appellate Practice (CEB; Oral Argument, Ch. 16).  While the foregoing resources generally deal with civil appeals, one great resource we have at my law library that deals with criminal appeals is called Appeals and Writs in Criminal Cases (CEB).

So, next time you find yourself up against a wall with no seeming way forward, head on over to your local county law library and your local county Law Librarian will hook you up with whatever it is you're needing.  Yeah, we're good that way.

I can't make this stuff up

Have you ever read a story and it sounds so out in left field that it can't possibly be true?  Like all those fish stories where the guy fights for hours and lands a prehistoric megalodon, or the 5 year old kid who pulls a superman and lifts a car off his dad, or the story where your dad walked to school and back home uphill both ways?  Tall tales all to be sure.

Anyway, I was reading the Los Angeles Daily Journal about a similar story.  Seems a supervisor noticed a used sanitary napkin on the staff bathroom floor.  I'm guessing this is a girl thing (because I don't know what it is (and don't really want to know)).  Anyway, supervisor rounds up all female employees and asks which one is having their, uh,...um,...which one was...uh..."leaking" down there?  When none of the female workers fessed up, supervisor lined them up against a wall (under penalty that they would be fired if they didn't comply) and one by one were taken into the bathroom where they had to pull their pants down (or dresses up) and were examined for "leakage."

Yeah, pretty funky.  So funky, in fact, that the female employees all filed suit against the company alleging, among other things, false imprisonment.  I'm guessing company lost and company sought compensation by it's insurance company.  Insurance company (stifling a belly laugh, I'll bet) said "NO" and company sued the insurance company for failing to pay on the policy.

Reading the case, it looks like the court was really scrambling to pull out a win for the insurance company. Seems in the original policy, there was an exclusion clause that made it so the insurance company wouldn't have to pay if certain things happened.  Because there is no way to list every little thing (like lining up a bunch of female employees up against a wall for "inspection"), insurance company added two words to include everything - "such as" - and that's what the court clung to when it handed a win to the insurance company.

I guess there are two morals to this story.  First, read the fine print - it's there to burn you.  Second, if you want to be sued, hire a Gestapo supervisor who does something so fantastic that no one could possibly believe it happened (and, subsequently, get blogged about).  Yeah, that's what you should do.

Down but not out

So, the other day as I was getting my law Librarian groove on, I had a patron come up to me with a dilemma.  Seems he had filed a lawsuit in Federal District Court, had lost, and was now in the process of appealing that decision.  The problem was that he didn't want to lose again and needed to know what he could do to increase his odds of success.

As it turns out, most law libraries have scads of resources on appealing Federal actions.  As such, I suggested he take a look at:

• Rutter Group Practice Guide: Federal Ninth Circuit Civil Appellate Practice (West)
• Federal Courts of Appeal: a manual on practice in the United States courts of appeal (West)
• Callaghan's Appellate Advocacy Manual: Lawyers Edition (CBC), and
• Appellate Practice in the United States (BNA)

While your local county law library might not have everything you'll ever need every time, you can be rest assured that if it's legal AND in print AND you need it to help you succeed, your local county law librarian won't rest until s/he finds it.

Word of the Month for August 2013: Pro Se

Ever heard the line, "No man is an island?"  Turns out, some people are.  I mean, either they do it to themselves or life thrusts them head on into peril...which all brings me to the word of this month:  PRO SE. 

According to Black's Law Dictionary (West), Pro Se is defined as: for oneself; on one's behalf; without a lawyer; one who represents oneself in court proceeding with the assistance of a lawyer (which is actually funny/sad given that darn near everyone who comes into my library representing themselves is always on the lookout for anyone who can give them advice on their case).  Anyway, if you find yourself on your own side either by choice or necessity (i.e. you can't afford an attorney), then might I suggest a few resources to help get you going in your quest to help yourself.  

First, let's say your marriage is falling (or has fallen) apart and you're looking to go it alone and file for divorce sans an attorney.  Might I suggest you take a look at Modern Child Custody Practice (Lexis) and/or Handling Child Custody, Abuse, and Adoption Cases (West).  Other titles that might help Nolo's Essential Guide to Divorce (Nolo Press) and Prenuptial Agreements (Nolo Press)

Next, say you've noticed that that mountain of debt you've amassed over the years is taking its toll on your sanity and you're now in desperate need of bankruptcy protection.  Might I suggest you take a look at Norton Bankruptcy Law and Practice (West), Collier Bankruptcy Practice Guide (Matthew/Bender), and Bankruptcy Appeal's Manual: winning your bankruptcy appeal (ABI).  If, on the other hand, you are the creditor of the guy who had been racking up mountains of debt and you want your money back, might I suggest you take a look at Strategies for Creditor's in Bankruptcy Proceedings (Aspen).

Finally, say you are looking to invest in real estate but want to limit your liability so you're looking to create a real estate investment trust (REIT) and have it run by your local bank representative (at only 12% per annum, if you're lucky).  A tricky proposition, to be sure, but before you toss your funds anywhere, might I suggest you take a look at Trust and Truestees (West), Miche on Banks & Banking (Lexis) Fletcher Cyclopedia Corporations (West), and Fletcher Corporation Forms Annotated (West).

Fact is, your local county law library is chock full of resource to help Pro Se litigants navigate the worldwide legal arena.  Whatever your need, know that your local county law Librarian has exactly what you need to get you up and going on whatever road you want to take.

Word of the Month for May 2013: Rules of Court

Once upon a time there were two brothers:  Cain and Able.  Able was a shepherd and Cain was a farmer.  One day, God came a 'callin asking both brothers to provide a sacrifice of an unblemished sheep.  Able went out to the field, snagged his best sheep and bada bing, bada boom, offered up the sheep.  Cain, on the other hand, thought he knew better what to do and offered up a bunch of twigs and leaves because that's what he does, grows twigs and leaves!  The result was that God accepted Able's sacrifice and rejected Cain's sacrifice. 

The other day, as I was doing my law Librarian thing, we had a patron come into the library all screaming and yelling and stomping around.  Seems he had submitted a set of legal documents to the court and the court rejected all of them because they failed to conform to the rules of court.  He screams, "Who do these ##%$@#%^ judges think they are and what in blazes are the rules of court?!?!?"

Black's Law Dictionary defines RULES OF COURT as "rules governing the practice or procedure in a given court" and, as it turns out, each court (state and Federal) are governed by their own set of rules of court.  The California Rules of Court govern the entire state of California and the local rules of court deal with issues for each county in the state of California.  In California alone there are rules of court for the California appeallate courts (Rules 8.1 - 8.1125); there are rules of court for criminal courts (Rules 4.1 - 4.700); rules for civil procedure (Rules 3.1 - 3.2120); rules for family and juvenile law issues (Rules 5.1 - 5.830); and even rules governing the law of practicing law (Rules 9.1 - 9.61).  Yep, there are certainly a whole bunch of rules which, if you don't follow them, may result in a painful judicial smackdown.

Now, back to the story.  For years it bothered me that God rejected Cain's sacrifice.  I mean, a sacrifice is a sacrifice, right?!  Actually, no.  The reason Cain's sacrifice was rejected was because Cain didn't follow procedure or, more to the point, the rules of court.  God said give me an "unblemished sheep."  Able did and Cain didn't.  Plain and simple.  If you don't follow the rules of court for the jurisdiction you are in (for example, you wouldn't use the California rules of court if you lived in Maine or Iowa, or Texas or Wyoming or the European Union, right?!), the court is going to (or can) reject your legal documents.  Plain and simple. 

Now, don't go out and start screaming about this.  Just suck it up and accept the fact that you're going to lose on this one.  If you need help locating the rules of court for your jurisdiction, head over to your local county law library and your local county law Librarian will help you out (and help prevent against your going around blaspheming against God, your least favorite judge, or whomever).

Well, what DOES the word "is" mean?!

I don't know if any of you remember but a few years back when Bill Clinton was still president of the USA, he was embroiled in a scandal and an impeachment hearing.  One of the funnier moments was when he answered a question with a question saying, "It depends on what the meaning of the word "is" is?  This was followed with some back and forth questions/answers about the definition of "is" and at the time it was pretty hilarious listening to the antics of Clinton et al.  I mean, I've never thought people who run for office had all that many brain cells to begin with and then to have an argument over what "is" means?!?  Yeah, pretty silly.

At least, I thought it was silly until up until the other day when someone came into the law

library asking how I might define the word "but."  "Really?!  You want me to define "but??!"  The patron was dead serious and so, instead of sending him over to Black's Law Dictionary (which is the final word on the definition of all things legal), I sent him over to look at Words and Phrases (West).  

So that you understand where I'm coming from, Words and Phrases is a set of books which contains words and phrases as they were used in court cases all over the country - both in state and Federal hearings.  It's actually a pretty useful resource when you not only need the definition of a word but how it is used in the context of a legal setting.

So, maybe you need to know what the word "nystagmus" is and how the courts might have used it in a legal setting.  For those who don't know, "nystagmus" is the involuntary movement of the eye and it comes into play when the police are checking to see if you've been drinking and driving - and it's in volume 28B.

Other terms and phrases of note might be "Byway" or "commenced" or mental pain and anguish" or "Ryan Warranty."  I mean, what in blazes is a Ryan Warranty, anyway?!?  Do any of you know?!?!  Well, you would if had you looked at volume 37B.

In any event, next time you get a hankering for needing to know something that you didn't know before, head on over to your local county law library - we're full of great ideas!