What’s Good for the Goose . . .

Earlier this week, a panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit issued its decision in In Re Sherwin-Williams Co. The court upheld Judge Lynn Adelman’s decision not to recuse himself from a case pending before him in the Eastern District of Wisconsin, Burton v. American Cyandamid, et al. 

Sherwin-Williams is currently before Adelman as a defendant in a personal injury action involving lead paint, heard in diversity jurisdiction. S-W believed “his impartiality might reasonably be questioned” (the relevant legal standard) because he had written an article defending the Wisconsin Supreme Court’s controversial lead paint decision in Thomas v. Mallett, 2005 WI 129.  (The article is Adelman & Fite, Exercising Judicial Power: A Response to the Wisconsin Supreme Court’s Critics, 91 Marq. L. Rev. 425 (2007)). In the article, Adelman defended the Court’s 04-05 term generally and praised Thomas particularly as a “positive development” which ensured that “the doors of the courthouse remain open.” Id. at 446. 

Based on this characterization, S-W sought his recusal in this case. 

Continue ReadingWhat’s Good for the Goose . . .

Who Owns a Sporting Event in Wisconsin?

The ownership rights to live athletic events has been the subject of much legal controversy since the rise of commercialized spectator sports a century and a half ago. In 1885, the Detroit Wolverines baseball club, then a member of the National League, sued John Deppert ,who owned a barn adjacent to Recreation Field, where the team played. Deppert was charging baseball fans a fee to climb on to the roof of his barn, from which the Wolverine games could be watched. A half-century later, the issue shifted to radio broadcasting, and the question became whether or not a radio station could broadcast live accounts of an ongoing game without the permission of the home team.

Today’s version of the question involves streaming images of games across the Internet. Earlier this month, Wisconsin federal district court judge William Conley weighed in on this question. The ruling came in a case involving the Wisconsin Interscholastic Athletic Association and The Appleton Post-Crescent newspaper and the Wisconsin Newspaper Association.

The WIAA sued The Post-Crescent after it streamed live coverage of four high school football playoff games in 2008.

The paper was apparently lawfully on the premises from which it “broadcast” the games, and it does not appear to have violated the terms of any license acquired from the WIAA.

In 2004, the WIAA had entered into a exclusive agreement with the When We Were Young Internet broadcasting firm that granted the company the exclusive right to stream live WIAA football games across the Internet. In the lawsuit, the WIAA took the position that it “owned” the rights to the games it produced, and thus could exclude the Post Crescent from broadcasting the games in competition with the official licensed broadcaster. The newspaper defended on the grounds that the exclusive agreement ran afoul of the First Amendment and the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause.

In his opinion, Judge Conley ruled on behalf of the WIAA, essentially finding that the association “owned” the rights to its games and that its granting a monopoly streaming license to one entity did not offend First Amendment values. Although John Deppert won his case back in 1886, twentieth- and twenty-first-century decisions in the United States have tended, with a few exceptions, to favor the party that puts on the athletic events, although the precise legal rationale for so finding has varied from case to case.

The issue is also not exclusively an American one, and the resolution of these disputes in the courts of other nation’s has not been uniform. An Israeli court recently reached a decision contrary to the Wisconsin decision in a case involving the streaming of English Premier League soccer matches to Israel, via the Internet. The court ruled that the league and its teams had no ownership interest in the games themselves, and thus could not prevent the dissemination of the games in Israel.

There is no question that the party who controls the grounds on which the games are played can impose restrictions on those who enter as licensees. However, whether or not there should be an additional property right in the games themselves is a question on which there appears to be no greater consensus today than there was in Deppert’s time.

Continue ReadingWho Owns a Sporting Event in Wisconsin?

Why Do So Many Divorce Litigants Represent Themselves?

In recent years, an increasing number of people seeking divorces have dispensed with lawyers.  What explains this trend?  Judi McMullen and Debra Oswald set out to find some answers by examining a random sample of 567 divorce cases from Waukesha, Wisconsin.  Consistent with national trends, they found high percentages of pro se litigants (43.9 percent of husbands and 37.7 percent of wives).  Given the relative prosperity of Waukesha County, these high rates of self-representation are probably not just a matter of litigants not being able to afford a lawyer.  Rather, the data showed that people tended to represent themselves in the simpler sorts of cases.  When complicating factors like minor children were present, litigants were more likely to obtain counsel. According to McMullen and Oswald, “This suggests that divorce litigants have good, common sense notions about when self-representation is feasible and when it is not.”

The data were not as clear regarding the effects of hiring counsel.  For instance, cases with represented clients took longer to complete, but this may simply reflect the fact that these cases tended to be more complex.

McMullen and Oswald reported their research in a recently published article entitled “Why Do We Need a Lawyer? An Empirical Study of Divorce Cases,” which appeared at 12 J. Law & Fam. Studies 57 (2010).  The article is also available here on SSRN.

Continue ReadingWhy Do So Many Divorce Litigants Represent Themselves?