Howard J Bashman

June 18, 2007 | National Law Journal

The U.S. Supreme Court's 5-4 ruling last week in Bowles v. Russell serves as a wake-up call to lawyers who handle appeals before the intermediate federal appellate courts, says litigator and commentator Howard J. Bashman. Think deadlines always include some wiggle room? Think again.

By Howard J. Bashman

5 minute read

August 07, 2006 | Law.com

With more law firms creating specialized appellate practices in response to demands from clients and judges, litigator Howard J. Bashman finds this an opportune time to review just what appellate lawyers do, how they can be of service to potential clients and fellow lawyers alike, and which traits appellate attorneys need to be successful. Oh, and did we mention the things to avoid during oral argument?

By Howard J. Bashman

7 minute read

June 04, 2007 | National Law Journal

On May 25, Arkansas' highest court announced a proposed change to that state's appellate court rules that would retroactively abolish non-precedential appellate court rulings. Commentator and appellate litigator Howard J. Bashman examines the proposal's significance and its possible ripple effect in other jurisdictions.

By Howard J. Bashman

5 minute read

July 24, 2006 | Law.com

The proliferation of blogs written by law professors and attorneys often results in robust online discussions of cases pending before the courts for resolution. In this way, appellate attorney Howard J. Bashman writes, the Internet can be regarded as a vast amicus brief through which legal experts may influence cases' outcome. But what is the proper response of judges if they, too, are reading the legal blogosphere's debates about the proper way to decide those cases?

By Howard J. Bashman

6 minute read

February 20, 2007 | Law.com

Although sharply divided Supreme Court rulings may provide countless hours of enjoyment for Court watchers, commentator Howard J. Bashman notes that they don't offer the same promise of legal stability provided by nearly unanimous decisions. In the wake of some noteworthy close cases, appellate litigator Bashman takes a look at Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr.'s search for less fractured rulings.

By Howard J. Bashman

7 minute read

April 09, 2007 | Law.com

As more than one litigator has learned firsthand, even a persuasive and well-written appellate brief along with a compelling oral argument do not guarantee victory on appeal. In this commentary, attorney Howard J. Bashman examines this seeming conundrum as he looks at the art and science of effective appellate advocacy.

By Howard J. Bashman

4 minute read

June 12, 2006 | The Legal Intelligencer

The death last month of 3rd Circuit Senior Judge Edward R. Becker causes me to think: If there is a red light governing the duration of appellate oral arguments in heaven, we can be sure that it's being enforced in a much more relaxed manner now.

By Howard J. Bashman

7 minute read

June 26, 2006 | National Law Journal

After a federal district court enters a final, appealable judgment that entitles one party to receive money from another, there frequently arise questions concerning whether the losing party should or must post a bond securing payment of the judgment in order to appeal. Looking, in part, at a 7th Circuit ruling in a related case, attorney Howard J. Bashman examines three key points that a party on the losing end of a money judgment must consider.

By Howard J. Bashman

7 minute read

September 18, 2006 | Law.com

In this commentary, appellate litigator Howard J. Bashman examines last week's decision by a three-judge panel of the 9th Circuit, which found that an Arizona inmate had knowingly and voluntarily abandoned his federal habeas corpus action challenging the imposition of the death penalty as punishment for having committed first-degree murder. Bashman writes that the panel's Eighth Amendment ruling raises fascinating issues concerning federal appellate courts' duties and powers.

By Howard J. Bashman

7 minute read

March 26, 2007 | Law.com

Former 7th Circuit Chief Judge Richard A. Posner and current Chief Judge Frank H. Easterbrook are often mentioned in the same breath, and for good reason, writes Howard J. Bashman, who calls them two of the most talented thinkers among the entire federal appellate judiciary. Given Posner and Easterbrook's similar talents and intellects, their disagreements on the proper resolution of a case can make for interesting reading, says Bashman, who examines one such case in particular.

By Howard J. Bashman

7 minute read