As you’ve probably gathered by now, my job isn’t exactly rocket science. I read some pleadings, read some transcripts, read some statutes, read some cases, and then shout an argument into a dictaphone to be transcribed in 14-point type. In between, I drink lots of coffee.
My colleagues who do “real work” here at
On October 19th from 3:00-5:30 p.m., the VSB’s Appellate Practice Committee will present a free appellate CLE at LeClair Ryan’s Riverfront Plaza office in Richmond. The Committee’s last CLE, or “symposium,” was by all accounts a big hit. Justice (let’s hope soon to be Judge) Keenan participated, and shared some sound observations and advice.
In Howell v. Sobhan, the Supreme Court of Virginia clarifies the law of proximate cause and gives us a new opinion replete with appellate practice pointers.
The Case
The plaintiff, Esther Howell, went to a gastroenterologist for a colonoscopy. He found 3 polyps in her colon, but was only able to remove one. The gastroenterologist sent Howell in for a “probable subtotal colectomy”–yes, it’s as bad as it sounds. Before surgery, the gastroenterologist determined that her polyp was benign.
Not that it mattered.
Howell’s surgeon, Dr. Sobhan, removed almost all of her colon, reattaching it to her small intestine through an anastomosis. After she was discharged from the hospital, Howell developed a fistula, or leak, that was penetrating her abdomen and coming through her wound. While she was in the emergency room, the incision in her abdomen split open, and “the bowel contents came out” through her incision.
This led to two more surgeries, and ultimately a suit against Dr. Sobhan for removing too much of her colon and using inappropriate anastomosis techniques.
At trial, Howell produced two experts. Both testified that Dr. Sobhan breached the standard of care by removing too much of her large intestine.Continue Reading Howell v. Sobhan: Appellate Practice Points from the Supreme Court’s New Opinion
My colleague and sometime coauthor, Travis Graham, is an eccentric civil procedure genius and all-around good guy. Among his other hobbies, Travis collects popular misconceptions of the law. He recently told me about a new urban legend making the rounds: the Nusbaum motion. As I understand it, there is a perception brewing in
As a follow up to our earlier discussion about oral argument, here are some additional thoughts from around the web.
Eugene Volokh spent a few posts last week blogging on Mayer Brown’s treatise on federal appellate practice, with items on oral argument here and here. These posts, and the comments they’ve generated,
Appellate texts and practice guides recite solemn homilies about the importance of the standard of review (and with good reason–but that’s another post). We are told that that standard of review defines the strength of the lens through which the appellate court will review the lower court’s decisions. Our standard of review should not be
For years, the Supreme Court of Virginia has enforced Rule 5:25, its contemporaneous objection rule, with a rigor that has terrorized even the most careful appellants. But the Court recently handed down a gift to the folks in front of the “v” in Helms v. Manspile, 277 Va. 1, 671 S.E.2d 127 (2009)