『The California Appellate Law Podcast』のカバーアート

The California Appellate Law Podcast

The California Appellate Law Podcast

著者: Tim Kowal & Jeff Lewis
無料で聴く

このコンテンツについて

An appellate law podcast for trial lawyers. Appellate specialists Jeff Lewis and Tim Kowal discuss timely trial tips and the latest cases and news coming from the California Court of Appeal and California Supreme Court.© 2025 The California Appellate Law Podcast 政治・政府 経済学
エピソード
  • Trump tariffs enjoined by…which court? And SCOCA takes up appealability of dismissals
    2025/06/05

    The Court of International Trade—whatever that is—enjoined Trump’s tariffs. But the Court of Appeal for the Federal Circuit imposed an administrative stay pending further briefing. We also cover:

    • Defending a Zoom depo? If you refuse to go on camera and are accused of improper witness communication, you may be sanctioned. (Remote depos are a game-changer—woe betide the attorney who screws it up for the rest of us!)
    • Case settled, but wire of settled funds intercepted by scammers. Who bears the burden depends on the circumstances—best practice is to put the wire info in the agreement itself.
    • Fee awards, abuse of discretion, and dueling precedents: Cash v. County of LA vs. Snoeck v. Exactime.
    • Supreme Court review granted in Maniago: Is a voluntary dismissal after a loss appealable?
    • Appearing at sentencing, Tom Girardi’s pants fall down—but he still gets 87 months.
    • Big Oral Argument News: Remote oral arguments are now available statewide without need to show good cause.

    Appellate Specialist Jeff Lewis' biography, LinkedIn profile, and Twitter feed.

    Appellate Specialist Tim Kowal's biography, LinkedIn profile, Twitter feed, and YouTube page.

    Sign up for Not To Be Published, Tim Kowal’s weekly legal update, or view his blog of recent cases.

    Other items discussed in the episode:

    • Beware using the Judicial Council form dismissal
    続きを読む 一部表示
    30 分
  • This is a District Court, not a Denny’s
    2025/05/28

    The Supreme Court faulted the district judge in A.A.R.P. v. Trump for refusing to grant the Venezuelan alleged Tren de Aragua members’ injunction. But on remand, Judge Ho comes to the judge’s defense: after all, the judge only had 42 minutes’ notice. And to conclude that the judge had had some 14 hours, Judge Ho noted, the Supreme Court must have started counting at 12:30 a.m. Last time we checked, Congress has not provisioned courts a budget to operate 24 hours. “This is a district court,” Judge Ho reminds, “not a Denny’s.”

    • The Supreme Court doesn’t have appellate jurisdiction without an actual order on the injunction motion. Tim agrees with Judge Ho that the Supreme Court played a little roughshod with the otherwise fussy jurisdictional rules.
    • But the Court is losing patience with the Trump Administration’s legal tactics, Jeff suspects, which is why the Court is willing to stretch past the limits on its power.

    What do you think? Is the Court’s move defensible exercising power arguably beyond its jurisdiction? Does it hold faith with Marbury, which famously established judicial power by not exercising it?

    We also discuss the one-sentence letdown in the high-stakes religious charter school case, Oklahoma Charter Board v. Drummond. And we share CALP alum Chris Schandevel’s appellate lessons from a hard-fought loss: how to serve your client when the Court doesn’t serve you the decision you fought for.

    Appellate Specialist Jeff Lewis' biography, LinkedIn profile, and Twitter feed.

    Appellate Specialist Tim Kowal's biography, LinkedIn profile, Twitter feed, and YouTube page.

    Sign up for Not To Be Published, Tim Kowal’s weekly legal update, or view his blog of recent cases.

    続きを読む 一部表示
    22 分
  • Oral arguments on nationwide injunctions
    2025/05/20

    SCOTUS spent two and a half hours hearing oral argument on Friday in the birthright-citizenship cases consolidated in Trump v. CASA—not about birthright citizenship, but about whether district courts should be issuing nationwide injunctions. Many justices, and commentators on both sides, have criticized nationwide injunctions as a judicial incursion into executive policymaking in both Republican and Democratic administrations. But will the Court use this case to impose limits?

    We discuss:

    • Plaintiffs in this case include 22 states. Absent a nationwide injunction, half the country would be under a different rule of birthright citizenship until the case resolves.
    • CJ Roberts suggested that, in true emergencies, the Court can resolve a case fast, in as little as a month. Does this cut for or against nationwide injunctions?
    • What does the Court think about using Rule 23 class actions as a substitute vehicle for nationwide relief?
    • Are we heading toward a “guidance-free” 5–4 non-decision?

    Appellate Specialist Jeff Lewis' biography, LinkedIn profile, and Twitter feed.

    Appellate Specialist Tim Kowal's biography, LinkedIn profile, Twitter feed, and YouTube page.

    Sign up for Not To Be Published, Tim Kowal’s weekly legal update, or view his blog of recent cases.

    Other items discussed in the episode:

    • Videos from this episode will be posted at Tim Kowal’s YouTube channel.
    続きを読む 一部表示
    28 分

The California Appellate Law Podcastに寄せられたリスナーの声

カスタマーレビュー:以下のタブを選択することで、他のサイトのレビューをご覧になれます。