Howard J Bashman

March 12, 2007 | The Legal Intelligencer

In August 2006, an en banc panel of the Superior Court issued a decision of importance to lawyers who handle appeals before that court.

By Howard J. Bashman

8 minute read

August 13, 2009 | The Legal Intelligencer

A vacancy on the U.S. Supreme Court and the very public effort to nominate and confirm a new justice understandably diverts attention away from nominating and confirming judges to fill the many vacancies that exist on the lower federal courts.

By Howard J. Bashman

5 minute read

August 08, 2005 | The Legal Intelligencer

Last week, the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, sitting en banc, ruled that Minnesota's canons of judicial conduct applicable to candidates seeking election to judicial office violate the First Amendment in two important respects.

By Howard J. Bashman

7 minute read

December 10, 2007 | Law.com

Litigator Howard J. Bashman writes that, as someone who looks at far too many appellate court rulings, he's often wondered what causes appellate judges to designate an opinion as "per curiam," instead of identifying the particular judge who wrote the decision. In this commentary, Bashman examines some possible reasons.

By Howard J. Bashman

5 minute read

September 08, 2003 | The Legal Intelligencer

Should pious Catholics be permitted to serve as judges on our nation's federal appellate courts? May a courthouse display as the centerpiece of its rotunda a large granite monument to the Ten Commandments? What about a historic plaque bearing the Ten Commandments' text located on an outside wall of a courthouse? Can public school teachers lead children in reciting the Pledge of Allegiance if it contains the words under God?

By Howard J. Bashman

7 minute read

July 16, 2007 | Law.com

In federal courts, the general rule is that orders entered during the course of a pending case are not appealable until the entire case has been resolved. This principle, commonly known as the "final judgment rule," provides that earlier rulings that were interlocutory when entered can be appealed at the conclusion of the case if they remain relevant at that point. Litigator and commentator Howard J. Bashman reviews an established exception to the final judgment rule: Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b).

By Howard J. Bashman

5 minute read

July 05, 2006 | Law.com

Although developing technology has had a tremendous influence on the way appellate briefs are researched and written, the impact to date on oral argument has been much more limited, says attorney Howard J. Bashman. The appellate litigator takes a look at the current state of affairs surrounding oral argument, and offers up some theories on what may be in store as federal courts embrace technological change.

By Howard J. Bashman

4 minute read

December 11, 2006 | National Law Journal

In this commentary, appellate litigator Howard J. Bashman examines decisions by 7th Circuit Judges Richard A. Posner and Frank H. Easterbrook and their response to attorneys who fail to comply with circuit rules or the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure. In one particular majority opinion of note, Posner asked rhetorically, "Are we being fusspots and nitpickers in trying ... to enforce rules?" Bashman provides his own answer to that question.

By Howard J. Bashman

9 minute read

July 12, 2004 | The Legal Intelligencer

The U.S. Supreme Court, in its just-completed term, issued a total of 80 opinions, 73 of which were signed and seven of which were per curiam.

By Howard J. Bashman

10 minute read

October 11, 2004 | The Legal Intelligencer

Two weeks ago, I was the keynote speaker at a dinner that began a conference sponsored by the Federal Judicial Center and the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on the Future of Electronic Filing in the Federal Courts of Appeals.

By Howard J. Bashman

7 minute read