Source: https://cbaclelegalconnection.com/2012/05/09/
Timestamp: 2019-04-25 18:44:17+00:00

Document:
1. Should I use a serial comma?
Some say we should omit the last comma in a series because it takes up space. For lawyers, however, ambiguity is much scarier than an extra comma.
Every authority that matters in the legal world favors the serial comma: Strunk and White, Wilson Follett, the Chicago Manual of Style, and Bryan Garner’s Dictionary of Modern Legal Usage, just to name a few. The few authorities that disagree are all journalism guides.
2. Can I start a sentence with however?
Smith, however, was unable to compensate Jones.
Smith was unable, however, to compensate Jones.
3. Can I start a sentence with and, but, or yet?
And that authority, if it exists, can derive only from the powers granted jointly to the President and Congress in time of war.
But they surely gave Congress ample reason to doubt that their application in pending cases would unfold as naturally as the Court glibly assumes.
Yet the mere statement that a military court is a regularly constituted tribunal is of no help in addressing petitioner’s claim that his commission is not such a tribunal.
One small point: When you start a sentence with and, but, or yet, don’t use a comma. The purpose of these punchy conjunctions is to force the reader into the rest of the sentence. A comma does nothing but stop the flow.
4. Can I start a sentence with because?
Petitioners’ brief in Eldred v. Ashcroft (2003).
Respondents’ brief in Bush v. Gore (2000).
Petitioner’s brief in Jackson v. Birmingham Bd. of Educ. (2006).
Ross Guberman is the founder and president of Legal Writing Pro, an advanced legal-writing training and consulting firm. He has conducted more than a thousand programs on three continents for many of the largest and most prestigious law firms and for dozens of state and federal agencies and bar associations. Ross is also a Professorial Lecturer in Law at The George Washington University Law School, where he teaches an advanced seminar on drafting and writing strategy. When you see the logo, you’re reading an article from Legal Writing Pro, where the article originally appeared.
The Twentieth Judicial District Nominating Commission has nominated three candidates for a district court judgeship created by the retirement of the Honorable James C. Klein, effective June 30, 2012.
The nominees for the bench are David Cheval of Boulder, Judy LaBuda of Niwot, and Bruce Langer of Superior. All candidates were selected by the commission on May 7.
Under the Colorado Constitution, Governor Hickenlooper has until May 23 to appoint one of the nominees to the position of District Court Judge for the Twentieth Judicial District (Boulder County).
The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals published its opinion in United States v. Diaz on Tuesday, May 8, 2012.
The Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision. Petitioner was convicted of knowingly leaving the scene of a car accident where she hit and killed a pedestrian. The accident occurred on the Pojoajue Pueblo Indian reservation. She was charged with committing a crime in Indian Country. On appeal, among other issues, Petitioner contended that the federal court lacked jurisdiction over the crime because the government failed to prove that the victim was not an Indian, a jurisdictional requirement.
The Court concluded that the government met its burden of proof. The testimony of the victim’s father provided enough evidence for a jury to conclude the victim was not an Indian for purposes of the statute. The Court also concluded that the district court did not err in its rulings on various other evidentiary and trial issues.
The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals published its opinion in Shepherd v. Holder, Jr. on Tuesday, May 8, 2012.
On appeal, the Tenth Circuit had to decide whether it had jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(C), which limits judicial review of orders to remove criminal aliens and to “ascertain as a jurisdictional fact whether [Petitioner] is a citizen or an alien, using the procedures that Congress prescribed in 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(5) for that purpose.” The Court found that her alien status precludes the Court’s jurisdiction. Her issue preclusion argument based on the Immigration Judge’s first decision is unavailing because administrative collateral estoppel does not apply to the § 1252(b)(5) analysis. Accordingly, her petition for review.
On Tuesday, May 8, 2012, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals issued three published opinions and six unpublished opinions.
Eissa v. Aetna Life Ins. Co.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 1252
 § 1252
 § 1252
 v.