Love in the library? Stop by the Circulation Desk and check out the Valentine decorations created and hung by student workers at the Circulation Desk: Allison Brigman, Christa Morton, Ashley Nightingale, Neil Patel, Jared Simmons, and Brittany Sutton. Many thanks to 1L Richard Vu, also a photographer, for the photographs. Stop by, enjoy the decorations, and have a piece of chocolate.
The Government Printing Office (GPO) is working on updating its existing online digital information system, FDsys. FDsys makes available the full text of selected federal information resources from the executive, legislative and judicial branches. For millions of students, FDsys is the go to web site for the Code of Federal Regulations, the Congressional Record, the Federal Register, the United States Code, and the decisions of the United States Supreme Court.
GPO is slowly phasing out FDsys, replacing it with Govinfo. As with FDsys, GovInfo will maintain digital certification of authentication for selected documents. It will also allow users to browse by an alphabetized list of documents, categories of information, date or congressional committee. According to GPO, the beta Govinfo is a content management system, a preservation repository, and an advanced search engine.
Check out Baby Blue’s Manual of Legal Citation here. Published by Public Resource.Org., Inc., this is an “open implementation of a uniform system of citation.” It was compiled by students at New York University School of Law under the direction of Professor Christopher J. Sprigman.
Obviously its system of citation is similar to that of Harvard Law Review’s The Bluebook: A Uniform System of Citation. Thus a copyright fight has ensued with the HLR hiring Ropes & Gray to issue a cease & desist demand regarding publication. Harvard’s contention: Baby Blue violates its own Bluebook copyright.
In spite of this, Baby Blue has been released in beta format at the end of January 2016. Students at Yale Law School working on the Yale Law Journal have come out with a letter of support for Baby Blue, urging students at other law schools to sign on and support the use of Baby Blue.
Congratulations to Charleston School of Law students Nick Uricchio, Melissa Bernadel, John Dodds, and Brian Kiel for winning first place at the Savannah Law School Trial Advocacy Competition earlier this month. Congratulations also go to Crystal Swinford, Kevin Phillips, George Sink, Jr., and Brittany Sutton for placing second. Individual awards for Best Cross Exam, Best Direct Exam, and Best Closing Argument went to John Dodds (Best Cross), Brian Kiel (Best Direct), and Crystal Swinford (Best Closing.) Team coaches included Professors Todd Bruno and Jessica Birt and law student Adrian Wilkes. Again, congratulations all!
On Wednesday, the South Carolina Supreme Court published two opinions: State v. Moore and Fisher v. Shipyard Village.
In State v. Moore, the Court reversed the court of appeals’ decision in State v. Moore, 404 S.C. 634 (Ct. App. 2013). The Court held that there was evidence to support the trial court’s original finding of reasonable suspicion, focusing on the unusual itinerary that Defendant gave the officer and the large sum of cash found on him after he stated that he was unemployed.
In Fisher v. Shipyard Village, a class action suit, the S.C. Supreme Court affirmed as modified the court of appeals’ decision reversing the trial court’s finding that the business judgment rule does not apply to the conduct of the Board of Directors of Shipyard Village Council of Co-Owners, Inc. The Court emphasized that because the business judgment rule only applies where a corporation acts within its authority, the court of appeals incorrectly stated that “any investigation” conducted by the Board pursuant to its duty to investigate “would be looked at under the business judgment rule to determine if the [Board] met its duty.” The Court also affirmed the trial court’s decision granting Petitioners partial summary judgment on the issue of breach of the Board’s duty to investigate, as the jury should have decided whether the Board breached its duty to investigate.