![]() ![]() ![]() Supreme Court) 10 offered a shorter and sweeter opener on a key issue in DePierre v. Saharsky (a University of Minnesota Law School graduate and also one of the most prolific attorneys to argue in front of the U.S. I intend to direct my argument this morning to the abstention issue: Did the federal court err by refusing to abstain to an ongoing state judicial proceeding? And the case presents perhaps one of the most stark examples of what can go wrong when there are jurisdictional disputes in the redistricting process. This case presents the Court with an opportunity to illuminate that important principle and clarify the apparent confusion in the lower federal courts. Redistricting is a power and responsibility that is reserved to the states in the first instance. Tunheim (District of Minnesota) did in Growe v. Sometimes it is best to focus the inquiry on the single most dispositive and pressing issue, just as future Chief Judge John R. 8Ĭlement’s very short roadmap identifies three key points (text, context, and consequences), while promoting the narrative that the respondent is trying to convert private into public land. ![]() Respondents’ effort to convert all of the land traversed by a Park Service-administered trail into lands in the National Park Service fails for reasons of text, context, and consequences. Cowpasture River Preservation Association: Clement’s succinct opening in United States Forest Service v. To avoid an interruption and ensure you make your key points, consider former U.S. And, third, there was no such settled background willfulness requirement. Second, the statutory text and structure supersede any settled willfulness requirement. The answer is no for three reasons: First, the phrase “principles of equity” signifies a multifactor analysis where no one factor is controlling. The question presented here is whether this phrase, “principles of equity,” requires trademark owners to prove willfulness as an absolute precondition to profit awards. The Lanham Act authorizes courts to remedy trademark violations by awarding infringers profits subject to the principles of equity. Fossil, Inc., from one of the most prolific appellate attorneys in U.S. Take, for example, this effective opener in Romag Fasteners, Inc. 4 Although some scholars suggest completing the roadmap in 30 seconds-because sometimes that’s as much time as you will have before an interruption 5-anything up to 60 seconds should suffice. As one practitioner put it: “Write out an introduction that, from the very first sentence, captures the panel’s attention, frames the appeal and the issues, and presents a compelling narrative why your client should prevail….” 3 It’s important that the theme not overshadow the roadmap, however. And the roadmap should introduce no more than three key points you wish to make. The thematic statement should remind the court of the nature of the case and reiterate your client’s story. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg led with the following piece of advice in remarking on advocacy: “Be brief, be pointed.” 1 For openings, this typically means beginning with a thematic statement and a roadmap of your main points. A review of openings and closings from these greats reveals three key insights: keep it short, sweet, and specific. To address this information gap, this article surveys just some of the great oral advocates from Minnesota and elsewhere. And there is little advice regarding how to make a powerful and persuasive beginning and end. ![]() What are the hallmarks of a strong opening and closing in oral argument? Most scholarship about oral advocacy focuses on the middle of the argument-the substance. As the saying goes, “You never win at oral argument, but you certainly can lose.” Your closing lines are therefore mission-critical as well. But the last impression can be just as important as the first. The opening volley of your oral argument is crucial. Briefing is usually the first opportunity to make an impression, but appearing before judges in person is often more influential. The first impression is the last impression.” It’s a familiar phrase and one that underscores the importance of oral argument. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |