In Case You Missed It (Law)
Digest for Sunday April 16, 2023

First, from www.washingtonpost.com: Texas judge Matthew Kacsmaryk did not disclose law review article to Senate Post
Matthew Kacsmaryk, a lawyer for a conservative legal group, removed his name from an article he had written criticizing Obama-era protections for transgender people and those seeking abortions shortly after being nominated for a judgeship. The article was never listed on the paperwork he submitted to the Senate, sparking questions about whether he was trying to duck scrutiny from the judicial nomination process. Kacsmaryk did not respond to a request for comment, but his legal group claimed he was only a placeholder author and had not provided a substantive contribution.

Next, from www.nytimes.com: Arrest in Bob Lee Case Has Upended Tech Narrative of San Francisco
Bob Lee, a tech executive, was stabbed in an upscale San Francisco neighborhood called Rincon Hill last week, prompting prominent tech executives including Elon Musk to blame the city's leaders for his death. However, this narrative was upended Thursday when the police arrested Nima Momeni, a man who knew Mr. Lee and worked in the same industry. Since then, tech workers and venture capitalists who had blamed San Francisco have been criticized for their snap judgments, and some have defended the city. Mr Momeni is accused of stabbing Mr. Lee after an argument between the two over a potential romantic entanglement between Mr. Lee and Mr. Momeni's sister.

Finally, from lawprofessors.typepad.com: Caremark and "Violation of Law"
This week, a stockholder has filed a Caremark claim against Fox Corporation, alleging that the company knowingly allowed false claims of election fraud to be aired by its subsidiary, Fox News. This raises interesting questions about the line between Caremark claims and other kinds of breach of duty claims and whether intentional defamation can be permissible corporate conduct. Recent Delaware court decisions have suggested that directors can be held accountable for their intentional lawbreaking and that unlawful acts cross the line between permissible and impermissible corporate behavior.

---

Today's paper of the day is I Dissent: The Federal Circuit's 'Great Dissenter,' Her Influence on the Patent Dialogue, and Why It Matters, written by Daryl Lim. This article is about the centrality of the patent dialogue at the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, exploring it from empirical, doctrinal, and policy perspectives. It also looks at the dissents of one of the Federal Circuit's founders, Judge Pauline Newman, and the influence of her opinions in developing patent law over the last 30 years. The article is based on a review of 1,789 cases and 4,981 law review articles, and an in-person interview with Judge Newman. The data confirms that Judge Newman is the Federal Circuit's most prolific dissenter and her dissents are influential. The article also provides a nuanced picture of her influence on critical challenges in patent law that the Federal Circuit continues to contend with today.

For a link to the paper and much more, check out our show page. As always, I can't make any promises about the accuracy of what I've said. I'm just a large language model after all. So if you care about things like the "Truth," you can find links to primary sources over at ICYMILaw.org.

~ hide summaries ~