Howard J Bashman

January 29, 2007 | National Law Journal

Some judges are crooked. Others are idiots. And some ignore or distort the facts and applicable law to reach results to their liking. So writes commentator Howard J. Bashman, who adds that, no matter how much an appellate litigator may dislike a particular court decision, the wise course of action in challenging the ruling is to focus on the dispute's merits, not on the trial judge's personal character, motivations or qualifications.

By Howard J. Bashman

7 minute read

May 11, 2009 | The Legal Intelligencer

Last week, I received in the mail a copy of a new book titled "A Good Quarrel: America's Top Legal Reporters Share Stories from Inside the Supreme Court." The "stories" these reporters are sharing in the book consist of their accounts of particularly noteworthy U.S. Supreme Court oral arguments.

By Howard J. Bashman

8 minute read

November 27, 2006 | Law.com

If you think December automatically brings a holiday lull in new legal matters, guess again. Litigator Howard J. Bashman sounds the alert about two amendments to the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, both set to take effect officially on Dec. 1. One involves electronic filing on appeal. The other, permitting citation to unpublished and non-precedential federal appellate court rulings, stands as the most controversial amendment to the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure of all time, writes Bashman.

By Howard J. Bashman

4 minute read

January 12, 2004 | The Legal Intelligencer

Several important proposed amendments to the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure have been released for public comment.

By Howard J. Bashman

8 minute read

January 10, 2006 | Law.com

A former chief judge of the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals once said the White House repeatedly tried to appoint ideologues to serve on that court, but after being confirmed, those judges consistently went on to defy such expectations. That former chief judge could have been speaking specifically about Judge Samuel A. Alito Jr., says attorney Howard J. Bashman, who writes that, in his experience, Alito is far from an ideologue, and his 3rd Circuit votes in civil cases have been unpredictable.

By Howard J. Bashman

6 minute read

September 13, 2004 | The Legal Intelligencer

Frequently, a party will wish to appeal from a ruling that issues before a case has been entirely resolved. In federal court, there are at least six exceptions to the final judgment rule in a civil case.

By Howard J. Bashman

7 minute read

October 09, 2006 | Law.com

With so much attention focused on the Capitol Hill scandal involving inappropriate text messages sent to interns, commentator Howard J. Bashman notes that a recent appellate decision confirms that federal obscenity prosecutions can be brought based on words that are unaccompanied by obscene visual images. While technology has not reached the point where a person can be prosecuted merely for thinking bad thoughts, there are exceptions to First Amendment protections for the expression of thoughts in language.

By Howard J. Bashman

3 minute read

June 13, 2005 | The Legal Intelligencer

The May 23 issue of Pennsylvania Law Weekly, a sister publication of The Legal Intelligencer, contained a front page article headlined A Thirst for Case Law: Practitioners Favor Posting Unpublished Memorandum Decisions on Court Web Sites. The article noted that while attorneys and law professors generally appear to favor online access to the nonprecedential rulings of the Superior Court of Pennsylvania, that court's judges appear to remain strongly opposed to such access.

By Howard J. Bashman

5 minute read

June 25, 2007 | Law.com

Ordinarily, writes Howard J. Bashman, three-judge panels of the 3rd Circuit view themselves as powerless to overrule one another, unless the legal question at issue has been definitively resolved by a higher court. However, in a ruling last week, a 3rd Circuit panel considered itself authorized to overrule an earlier panel's prediction. Commentator Bashman examines the ruling, which has helped reawaken debate on the binding nature of federal court predictions of state law.

By Howard J. Bashman

6 minute read

January 12, 2009 | The Legal Intelligencer

On appeal, is the "standard of review" different from the "scope of review"? Those of us who regularly handle appeals in the Pennsylvania state court system know that the answer is yes. Indeed, Pennsylvania Rule of Appellate Procedure 2111(a)(3) requires that the brief for appellant contain a "[s]tatement of both the scope of review and the standard of review."

By Howard J. Bashman

5 minute read