Friday, April 26, 2013

A lost fight over the lost script for LOST series - an Idea is as free as the air

On April 4, 2013, Second Appellate District issued an opinion in Spinner v. American Broadcasting Companies, Inc., Case No. B239229, coming out, of course, from Los Angeles Superior Court. This is a case regarding a fight over the rights to LOST television series. In its "Facts" section, the court described the inception of the series in great detail, which in itself is an interesting story.

Monday, April 22, 2013

Interest on Security Deposits: State view vs. San Francisco

California's general rule is that the landlord is not required to pay interest on the tenant's security deposit. The return of a residential security deposit is covered by the Cal. Civ. Code, Section 1950.5, and, as the case Korens v. R. W. Zukin Corp., 212 Cal. App. 3d 1054 (1989) indicated, "[a]lthough the subject of security deposits given in connection with the rental of residential properties has been extensively regulated by the legislature, Cal. Civ. Code § 1950.5, no provision of state law imposes the additional requirement that interest be paid on security deposits by landlords."

Sunday, April 14, 2013

Burning Man Law

This month, Stuart Banner's book came out, covering courts' treatment of baseball, exempting it from the antitrust law. Reading an article about this book, I sought of another cultural phenomena, the Burning Man festival, and decided to take a look, what impact the festival makes on shaping courts' decisions, what constitutes the Burning Man law. I found six cases, which contributed to a variety of rules.

Wednesday, April 10, 2013

100 Cases filed in the San Francisco Superior Court

I took a sample of 100 cases filed in the San Francisco Superior Court, to see its litigation dynamics. If another sample will be taken in a future, it will be interesting to compare, like I did with the scoop of 100 California appellate decisions, here. For now, here are my findings:

Sunday, April 7, 2013

De Minimis Non Curat Lex


Meaning: The law cares not for trifles.

This maxim may be seen as one of the principles of judicial economy―that the court should not spend its time on trifling matters, or that some trifling details should not divert court's decision on a material point.

Thursday, April 4, 2013

How rare an accident may still be "foreseeable"? 1 in 641,025 years.

In a recent strict liability case, Collins v. Navistar214 Cal.App.4th 1486 (2013), court held that it is possible for a vehicle manufacturer to foresee an event, with an effective chance of .003.009 per billion vehicle-miles.

Tuesday, April 2, 2013

Not Having The Fear of God Before His Eyes: How Long Does It Take to Separate Religion From Indictment? [208+ years]

When I studied the legal maxim "Allegata et Probata" and came across a 1778 case Respublica v. Carlisle, 1 U.S. 35 (1778), it caught my eye that the allegations against the defendant were made with a help of religious reference to God and Devil: "not having the fear of God before his eyes, but being moved and seduced by the instigation of the Devil."

The allegation sounded very romantic, but looked suspicious for its place in a middle of an indictment of a serious criminal case. I thought to myself, this smells like an issue of mixing religion with the government, and decided to look closer. Here is what I found: