The Supreme Court began hearing oral argument for the fall term this morning.  SCOTUS Blog always has great coverage of what cases are being argued today and a preview of the cases this week.  Two interesting criminal procedure cases are being argued Tuesday: Herring v. United States (07-513), on whether courts must suppress evidence seized during an arrest made as a result of faulty information provided by another law enforcement agency Arizona v. Gant (07-542), on whether police must show a threat to their safety or the preservation of evidence to conduct a warrantless search of a car whose occupant was recently arrested. So I was wondering if argument actually influences the decisions of the Justices.  Interesting article from the Yale Pocket Part - an online publication of the Yale Law Journal. Frederick Liu's Citing the Transcript of Oral Argument: Which Justices Do It and Why analyzes empirical data from 1994-2007, examining the number of citations to the oral argument transcript that are included in opinions. Liu also details how Justices use oral argument. The three main reasons Justices cite the transcript are: (1) to describe an advocate's affirmative position; (2) to record an advocate's concession; and (3) to note an advocate's representation ...

I'm going to write one of the best case excerpts you've ever read.  Case: Stambovsky v. Ackley, 169 A.D.2d 254 (N.Y. App. Div. 1st Dep't 1991) Judges: Rubin, J. Ross and Kassal, JJ., concur with Rubin, J.; Milonas, J. P., and Smith, J., dissent in an opinion by Smith, J.  Facts: ? bought a house from ?, which he later found to have a reputation for being haunted. OPINION. [D]efendant is estopped to deny [the ghost's] existence and, as a matter of law, the house is haunted. More to the point, however, no divination is required to conclude that it is defendant's promotional efforts in publicizing her close encounters with these spirits which fostered the home's reputation in the community. . . . [I]n his pursuit of a legal remedy for fraudulent misrepresentation against the seller, plaintiff hasn't a ghost of a chance, I am nevertheless moved by the spirit of equity to allow the buyer to seek rescission of the contract of sale and recovery of his down payment. . . . "Pity me not but lend thy serious hearing to what I shall unfold" (William Shakespeare, Hamlet, Act I, Scene V [Ghost]). . . .  "Who you gonna' call?" as a title song to the movie "Ghostbusters" asks. Applying ...

I think I'm going to start a Quote of the Week feature where I'll post some law-related amusing quote. If you're lucky, it'll be a real quote and not from class. The quote this week is from oral arguments in Harris v. Forklift Sys., 510 U.S. 17. QUESTION: You would seem to be developing a more complex test, and I was wondering why? You said severe, and pervasive, and --MR. VENICK (For Petitioner): That's the language in Meritor, Your Honor, which we heartily embrace....QUESTION: But you said sufficiently severe to alter the conditions of employment. That is utterly meaningless to me. I don't care if we did say it.