Why It is Unconstitutional for State Bars, When Doling out Bar-Exam Seats, to Favor In-State Law Schools

VIKRAM DAVID AMAR

Illinois law dean Vikram David Amar explains why it is unconstitutional for state bars to favor in-state law schools when deciding who may sit for the state bar exam while complying with social distancing requirements, based on the Supreme Court’s precedents on the dormant Commerce Clause.

Read More

Changsha Metro Group Co., Ltd. v. Xuefeng

Docket: E073322(Fourth Appellate District)

Opinion Date: May 20, 2020

Judge: Miller

Areas of Law: Civil Procedure

The trial court found defendants Peng Xufeng and Jia Siyu filed a frivolous anti-SLAPP motion against Changsha Metro Group Co., Ltd. (Changsha). The trial court ordered defendants to pay Changsha $61,915 for Changsha’s attorneys’ fees in opposing the anti-SLAPP motion. Defendants appealed, contending the trial court erred in awarding attorneys’ fees to Changsha because: (1) defendants were not given a 21-day safe harbor period; and (2) Changsha requested fees in its opposition to the anti-SLAPP motion, rather than in a separate motion. Finding no reversible error, the Court of Appeal affirmed.

People v. Smolkin

Docket: A155891(First Appellate District)

Opinion Date: May 20, 2020

Judge: Mark B. Simons

Areas of Law: Criminal Law

Deputy D.A. Horvath prosecuted Smolkin for parole violations, including Smolkin's threat to blow up a parole office building. Smolkin was sentenced to 180 days in jail. , Horvath received a handwritten letter from Smolkin, stating that Smolkin was a member of Russian military intelligence and that Horvath had been “sentenced to death in Moscow for the crime of kidnapping a soldier of the armed forces of Russia... I am scheduled to be released... I warn you, if charges are not dropped ... my parole cancelled, I will ... effectively sentence, the entire Solano County DA’s office with kidnapping punishable by death by Russian military firing squad. Let me be crystal clear—I have no training in riflery or authorization to carry out an execution... your entire office will be arrested by Russian military police ... and sentenced to death by firing squad… My only part in the execution, ... will be to livestream it.” Small text in a margin stated, “It is clear to any rational person that I pose no threat to anybody.” Smolkin repeated, “Once again, I am not authorized to, nor will I, take any actions that violate California laws.” The court of appeal reversed Smolkin's conviction for resisting an executive officer, Penal Code 69. On these specific facts, a reasonable listener would not have found the delusional letter “a serious expression of an intent to commit an act of unlawful violence.”