News

      As part of a team of plaintiffs' lawyers, CCL participated in the writing and filing of briefs representing a proposed class of minority residents who were stopped-and-frisked by Chicago police without probable cause. The City of Chicago challenged class certification of the class, as well as the expert evidence in support of certification. Two briefs responded to Chicago's objections. 

Share »

    CCL President Robert S. Peck attended the 2018 Annual Meeting of the American Law Institute in Washington, DC on May 21-22. At the meeting, members debated and approved new Restatements of the Law on Liability Insurance and Intentional Torts to Persons. In addition, the ALI made further progress on the Restatement on tort liability for economic harm. THE ALI publishes the final restatements, which are very influential in the states in how the law might be modernized. ALI members are experienced lawyers, judges, and academics.

     In addition to the work of the ALI, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg was awarded the Henry J. Friendly Medal for her contributions to the law. Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr., a former law clerk to Judge Friendly, presented the medal to Justice Ginsburg. At an evening session, attendees were treated to a conversation between Justice Elena Kagan and former Solicitor General Paul Clement about the workings of the Solicitor General's office, moderated by Duke law dean David Levi.

Share »

     CCL's Robert S. Peck attended the Annual Leaders Forum Retreat held by the American Association for Justice in Einskerry, County Wicklow, Ireland. The retreat, at which Peck has served as a speaker in the past, featured prominent Irish legal figures speaking about their civil justice system. 

Share »

     Within a couple of hours of the filing of opposing counsel's brief, U.S. District Court Judge James Moody, Jr. issued an order staying discovery in Griffen v. The Supreme Court of Arkansas, pending a decision by the Eighth Circuit on CCL's petition for a writ of mandamus.

     Arkansas trial judge Wendell Griffen challenged his permanent recusal in death penalty cases after blogging and participating in two public protests on the issue and during part of which a case was pending before him. Upon an emergency petition filed by the state attorney general, the Arkansas Supreme Court issued the recusal order. The pending case was reassigned and the succeeding judge issued an order similar to the one Judge Griffen originally signed prior to his recusal.

    Judge Griffen filed a federal challenge to his recusal, naming the state supreme court and each of its justices as defendants. CCL represents the court, its chief justice, and two of the other justices. In response to motions to dismiss, federal judge Moody dismissed the Arkansas Supreme Court from the action, but permitted the case to continue against the individual justices. On behalf of all justices, CCL filed a petition for a writ of mandamus in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. The Eighth Circuit ordered a response from Judge Griffen, and CCL filed a reply brief earlier this week.

     CCL also moved for a stay of discovery during the pendency of the mandamus petition. It was that motion Judge Moody granted Wednesday.

Share »

      Today, CCL filed a reply brief on behalf of all justices of the Arkansas Supreme Court in support of their petition for a writ of mandamus in Griffen v. The Supreme Court of Arkansas. The case asserts that a trial judge's civil rights were violated by an order of recusal issued by the Supreme Court. CCL represents the Court and three of its justices.

      The U.S. District Court dismissed the Arkansas Supreme Court from the action on CCL's motion, but maintained the lawsuit against the justices in their official capacity. A petition for a writ of mandamus was filed in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, arguing that the case should not be permitted to go forward. In reply, the state trial judge argued that the recusal order amounted to an administrative personnel action against him, but today's brief demonstrated that the Supreme Court order had all the earmarkings of a judicial decision, immune from collateral attack in federal court and that recusal does not diminish or otherwise adversely affect a judge's office.

Share »

     One day after the Eighth Circuit indicated interest in the Petition for a Writ of Mandamus on behalf of justices of the Arkansas Supreme Court, CCL, on behalf of the seven justice of that court, filed a motion to stay discovery pending resolution of the justices' petition. 

     The federal judge presiding in the case had previously granted a temporary stay while the justices' motion to dismiss was pending. The current motion seeks the same treatment.

Share »

     A week after CCL filed a Petition for a Writ of Mandamus, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit ordered opposing counsel to file a response in the ongoing litigation between a state trial judge and members of the Arkansas Supreme Court. 

     The judge had sued the state's highest court and its justices, challenging a recusal order issued by the Supreme Court after the judge had participated in two public protests and commented in a personal blog on matters that came before him. The Arkansas Attorney General moved for the judge's recusal, and the Court granted it, making the reassignment from the cases a permanent one. The judge then sued in federal court, arguing that his rights were violated by the recusal order.

     In response to a motion to dismiss filed by CCL, the federal court dismissed the Arkansas Supreme Court from the action, holding that it was ineligible to be sued due to sovereign immunity. The judge, however, allowed the case to continue with the justices as defendants, which prompted a joint petition for mandamus. Mandamus is considered an extraordinary remedy, and opposing counsel does not need to respond to it unless requested by the appeals court. Here, the court did just that, requiring a response as soon as was convenient. That order is considered a good sign that the Eighth Circuit could take up the request for mandamus.

Share »