The Real Insidious Part of Dershowitz’s Impeachment Defense

VIKRAM DAVID AMAR, EVAN CAMINKER

Illinois law dean Vikram David Amar and Michigan Law dean emeritus Evan Caminker discuss Harvard Law professor Alan Dershowitz’s explanation of why he stands (virtually) alone in his views on impeachment—that all the scholars who disagree with him are biased partisans. Amar and Caminker explain why this claim is so insidious, with effects lasting well beyond the span of the current presidency.

Read More

Brauner v. AHC of Boise

Docket: 45980

Opinion Date: February 4, 2020

Judge: Stegner

Areas of Law: Civil Procedure, Medical Malpractice

At issue before the Idaho Supreme Court in this case was a suit for medical malpractice brought by Leila Brauner against AHC of Boise, dba Aspen Transitional Rehab (Aspen). The claim arose out of Aspen’s delay in sending Brauner to the hospital following her knee replacement surgery, which was a substantial factor resulting in the amputation of Brauner’s right leg at the mid-thigh. After a trial, the jury entered a verdict in favor of Brauner and awarded her $2,265,204 in damages. Aspen appealed, alleging that various pre-trial and post-trial rulings were made in error and resulted in an unsustainable judgment. After review, the Supreme Court found no reversible error, and affirmed.

Idaho Dept. of Health & Welfare v. Jane Doe (2019-27)

Docket: 47415

Opinion Date: February 4, 2020

Judge: Bevan

Areas of Law: Family Law, Government & Administrative Law

In an expedited appeal to the Idaho Supreme Court, a magistrate court terminated Jane Doe’s (“Mother”) parental rights after finding clear and convincing evidence that Mother neglected her children, K.M. and R.M., and that termination was in the best interests of the children. Mother did not appeal the magistrate’s finding that she neglected her children. She only appealed the magistrate court’s finding that termination was in the best interests of the children. The magistrate court found Mother’s testimony lacked credibility and relied on other witnesses to find that Mother had neglected her children under Idaho Code section 16-2005(1)(b) because Mother had failed to reunify with her children and had failed to comply with her case plan. According to Mother, termination was not in the best interests of her children because Mother had a close bond with her children, K.M. was not responding well to foster care, there was no evidence of violence between Mother and her children, and Mother tried to the best of her ability to comply with her case plan. The Supreme Court found substantial evidence supported the magistrate court's finding that termination was in the children's best interests, and affirmed.