Only Good Things Happen When Parties Agree

In Minnesota only about 2 percent of all cases filed proceed to trial.  The remainder are settled between the parties, by default judgment or adjudicated by the court prior to trial.  From my experience, the best resolution is when the parties come to an agreement.  Although one may not be overly happy with a settlement agreement, it takes away the uncertainty of a decision being made by a jury or judge.  When a lawsuit is initiated an early mediation can help bring the parties to an agreement to settle the matter.

Be careful what you blog or post.

Words have consequences.  This is even more true in the digital age. 

Recently a nursing student posted a detailed blog post about her experience with an obstetric patient which “attempt at humor was an abject failure . . . Her observations on women, children, motherhood and the birthing process are for the most part, crass and uncouth." Yoder v. Univ. of Louisville, 2009 WL 2406235 (W.D. Ky Aug. 3, 2009).  Yoder was summarily dismissed from the nursing program because of her "internet postings regarding patient activities and identification as a University of Louisville School of Nursing student violates the nursing honor code which you pledged to uphold on September 7, 2008."  She eventually brought suit under 42 U.S.C. §1983 for violation of her First Amendment right to free speech.  She also argued that a confidentiality agreement she was subject to was unconstitutionally vague.  Further, she alleged that there was also a violation of her Fourteenth Amendment right to due process.  The District Court granted summary judgment in favor of the dismissed nursing student based on contract interpretation and did not make any determinations on the Constitutional issues.  Basically, the District Court ruled that the confidentiality agreement, code of conduct and standards of the nursing profession were either too vague or the facts of the case did not rise to the level of being a violation/breach.

Can you rely on Wikipedia as legal authority?

Is Wikipedia primary authority?  Is it reliable?  Should you rest an argument on what you find in Wikipedia?  If you answered “yes”, you better think again.  In United States v. Sypher, 2011 WL 579156 (W.D. Ky. Feb. 11, 2011), the Court had to remind the defense attorney that Wikipedia is not an acceptable source of legal authority in United States District Courts.  The court noted that the defense council cobbled much of his argument of law by cutting and pasting, without citation, from the Wikepedia web site: