Support legal teams with “friend-of-the-court” briefs: Amicus briefs (“friend-of-the-court” briefs) can be filed by groups that seek to expand on legal teams’ arguments or bring an additional perspective to the conversation. During marriage legal cases, state and national partners often came together to line up robust amici briefs, and as marriage work shifted overwhelmingly to the courts in 2014, a significant amount of work involved enlisting signers. Hand-in-hand with our legal advocacy organizations Freedom to Marry worked to enlist signers who could demonstrate most powerfully that America was ready for marriage nationwide.  This included Republican officials, faith leaders, businesses, first responders, and mayors. During these court cases, we generated media and public discussion by highlighting the numbers and prominence of signers on amicus briefs, and putting forward their business/public health/faith, etc., case for ending marriage discrimination. 

Ensure that all media moments get maximum media coverage. Oftentimes, state LGBT groups simply didn’t have the capability to shape an opportunity for the press, pitch the story, and secure solid coverage in print and broadcast media.  As a result, Freedom to Marry created an in-house capacity to do just that.  We’d work with local organizers and attorneys to shape opportunities and maximize likelihood of coverage.  In certain states, like Wyoming, this resulted in several strong, front-page stories in the state’s most important newspaper as we rolled out a list of prominent Republicans and clergy who were in support of the freedom to marry.  We’d ensure that signers onto amicus briefs who we knew were newsworthy were available to speak to the press, sometimes holding media calls with key amici and other times offering exclusive stories to key outlets.  And we’d work closely with the legal teams, local reporters covering the legal cases, and editorial boards to ensure they had access to attorneys and plaintiffs at key moments (deadlines for filing briefs, lead-up to oral arguments, etc.), had the chance to ask questions, and understood our side of the case. And in every situation, once we’d secure a news story, positive editorial, or powerful broadcast piece, we’d amplify it through our Digital Action Center. 
LII was established in 1992 at Cornell Law School by Professor Peter Martin and Tom Bruce with a $250,000 multi-year startup grant from the National Center for Automated Information Research.[9] The LII was originally based on Gopher and provided access to United States Supreme Court decisions and the US Code.[3] Its original mission included the intent to "carry out applied research on the use of digital information technology in the distribution of legal information,...[and t]o make law more accessible."[9] In the early years of LII, Bruce developed Cello the first web browser for Microsoft Windows.[10][11] Cello was released on 8 June 1993.[12] In 1994 LII moved from Gopher to the Web.[3] Since 2007 the IRS has distributed its IRS Tax Products DVD[13] with LII's version of 26 USC (Internal Revenue Code).[14]
Los Angeles, CA It is clear that workers who show up for a shift but are then told to go home because there is not enough work are entitled to wages under California law. The decision in Ward v. Tilly’s, a recent California unpaid wages lawsuit takes it a step further. If you have to call before your scheduled shift is to begin to find out if you really should go in, then you are entitled to wages for a portion of your shift, even if the answer is “no.”
It is now official: Conservative Judge Brian Hagedorn has defeated liberal Judge Lisa Neubauer (pictured) in Wisconsin’s Supreme Court election. Neubauer conceded on Wednesday in a very close race, where Hagedorn won by 6,000 votes despite being the underdog. This result is a significant reversal from 2018 when the conservative Judge Michael Screnock lost by 12% to the liberal (now Justice) Rebecca Dallet. More importantly, this election was a flip from blue to red. The state Supreme Court result not only has significant consequences for policy in Wisconsin, but it is an important signifier heading into 2020.
During the 18th and 19th centuries, it was common for lawyers to speak of bringing an "action" at law and a "suit" in equity. An example of that distinction survives today in the text of the Civil Rights Act of 1871. The fusion of common law and equity in England in the Judicature Acts of 1873 and 1875 led to the collapse of that distinction, so it became possible to speak of a "lawsuit." In the United States, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (1938) abolished the distinction between actions at law and suits in equity in federal practice, in favor of a single form referred to as a "civil action."
The official ruling of a lawsuit can be somewhat misleading because post-ruling outcomes are often not listed on the internet. For example, in the case of William J. Ralph Jr. v. Lind-Waldock & Company[4] (September 1999), one would assume that Mr. Ralph lost the case when in fact, upon review of the evidence, it as found that Mr. Ralph was correct in his assertion that improper activity took place on the part of Lind-Waldock, and Mr. Ralph settled with Lind-Waldock.[5]
×