July 1, 2009 by Zale.

Should the Ricci ruling have an impact on Judge Sotomayor’s confirmation hearings? Absolutely!  This case, despite what the main stream media says, is not white vs minorities.  This case was brought by 17 whites and a Hispanic.  Should that make a difference?  Well, when your argument is that the test should be thrown out because its designed so minorities can’t pass it, and the whole time, a minority has passed it, you’ve got a problem.

Do I think the court got this one right? Absolutely!  We are never going to get past racism in this country, if minority groups keep raising the “race card”.  Especially when it’s in reference to their abilities based SOLELY on race (or sex for that matter).  Unfortunately, Judge Sotomayor has made this comment as well, by referring to her superior judgment as a Latina woman on several occasions.  So, its really no surprise she ruled the way she did on this case.

I’ll just take the title of “American” thank you. I’m glad the American firefighters, who worked so hard for their grade on the test, get credit for what they did.

Posted in Constitutional Law | No Comments »

April 16, 2009 by Zale.

It’s no big deal, right? It’s just a misdemeanor, right?

Well, it is a misdemeanor, but as long as you don’t mind spending 11 months and 29 days in jail, then I guess a misdemeanor is no big deal.  For the rest of us, any jail time is a big deal.

Take Mr. Martin for example, he received his third driving on suspended license charge.  For his sentence, he received 120 days in jail and the balance to be served on probation.  He felt this was excessive, after all, a misdemeanor is no big deal, right?  The court didn’t agree with him.  The court of appeals upheld his sentence.  If nothing else, the court knew that for 120 days, he would not have the opportunity to drive without a license.

The moral of this story?  Driving is a privilege, not a right.  If you habitually drive without a license in Tennessee, and get caught for it, don’t expect many breaks from the court.

Posted in Criminal Law | No Comments »

April 15, 2009 by Zale.

“16 illegals sue Arizona rancher” Why is this even in court?  I’m not sure who I hold more contempt for, the attorney(s) who agreed to take the case or the judge that didn’t summarily throw it out.  If we don’t control our borders, then they will control us.  These plaintiff should have been met by ICE when the walked in the court room.

Posted in Immigration | No Comments »

April 10, 2009 by Zale.

Recently, there has been a phenomena of Tea Party rallies opposed to President Obama’s unprecedented tax increases.  Many local governments are trying to either shut these down or hinder them.  This seems strange to me.  The Freedom of Speech rights that Americans have under the 1st Amendment makes us the envy of the world.

Unfortunately, it appears in our current, society, which is obsessed with political correctness, everyone is free to talk about global warming, homosexuality and the legalization of drugs. But when we talk about our growing and ever oppressive tax burden, we’re shunned and silenced.

Don’t these people study history?  Don’t they understand that its THIS ISSUE that drove the wedge between the colonial states and England?  This country was born out of the need of freedom, primarily TAX FREEDOM.

I would love to try one of these cases where either the government tries to silence someone on this issue or tries to bring criminal charges for it.  Bring it on!

Posted in Freedom of Speech | No Comments »

April 10, 2009 by Zale.

In a meeting the other day, a few things came up that sets my office apart from the general perceptions of attorneys and law offices.

Forgiveness - I  believe that Jesus taught us to forgive.  This does not always fit with plaintiffs mindset toward their cases, but it is still important.  On the flip side of this, forgiveness is what allows me to do criminal defense.

Risk - I am all about planning.  I believe that businesses and individuals should do all they can to minimize their legal risks and liability.  However, where I differ from the general perception of attorneys is that I believe that sometimes we get too paranoid about liability.  We need to plan and pray, but we can’t live our lives fearing litigation.  The biggest problem I see is that often churches and Christ centered business don’t use their facilities and resources to their fullest potential.  This is due to their fearing opening their facilities and resources to the masses.

Politics - I’m a conservative.  I’m Pro-Life.  I’m a Christian. I believe that heterosexuality is the only sexuality.  These are principles that my office is based on.   I’m open and vocal about this, even though these views are generally not popular in the legal community.

So, these are some things that set me and my practice apart from others.  Whether or not clients or potential clients agree with the above views and principles is beyond my control, but I think its good for them to know.

Posted in General Law | No Comments »

March 19, 2009 by Zale.

In this recent case, the plaintiff argued that the insurance policy was ambiguous when it came to the meaning of “regular use” of a vehicle.  See if the injured party had “regular use” of a vehicle that was not listed on his personal insurance policy, ie, his police patrol car, then there was no Uninsured or Underinsured Motorist coverage under his personal insurance policy.

The plaintiff’s argument here is something along the lines of Bill Clinton question the meaning of the word “is”.  Generally when someone attacks an insurance policy, they claim the wording is ambiguous.  Sometimes it is.  This argument was successful at the trial court level, but not at the Court of Appeals level.

What do we learn from this case? In Tennessee, it is generally a safe bet that if there’s a common, plain way to read an insurance policy, that’s the way it is going to be read.  This is unfortuneate for the plaintiff, but fortuneate for the rest of Tennessee.  The reason is that if courts start rewriting insurance policies, then insurance rates will go up to make up the difference.

Posted in Injury Law, Insurance Law | No Comments »

February 27, 2009 by Zale.

In an injury case in Tennessee where there is  hospital lien, it is a big deal.  Why?  Tenn. Code Ann. §29-22-101.  It gives the hospitals a “big stick” to wield against insurance companies, specifically automobile insurance companies.

In this case,  Nationwide felt the wrath of the The Med under this statute.  The Med, who is very well informed regarding this statute, recovered their entire lien amount of $33, 823.02 when the automobile insurance policy only had $5,000 in coverage.  Trust me, that’s every adjuster’s nightmare.  When anyone recovers more than the coverage on the policy, insurance companies just come apart at the seams.

So, if you are wondering why an adjuster is more concerned about your hospital bill than any other bill, its becase of Tenn. Code Ann. §29-22-101.

Posted in Injury Law, Insurance Practices, Insurance Law | No Comments »

February 27, 2009 by Zale.

You don’t have to read this blog long to know that I am somewhat critical of slip and fall claims.  Why?  Because the courts are highly critical of them.   With that being said, there are valid slip and fall claims, even if they are few and far between.

Take this case for example.  When a business encourages the throwing of peanut shells on the floor as part of their image, they should not be surprised when someone falls on one of the shells.  Furthermore, a jury should get the opportunity to decide whether or not that business should be held liable for the person’s injuries.  Who knows, maybe the jury will see that the person who fell should have been more attentive.  But the case should still be allowed to go to the jury.

In this case, the trial court in Davidson County, Tennessee granted the restaurant Summary Judgment finding that the “restaurant did not owe a duty to patron because the presence of the peanut shells was not a latent or hidden condition and did not create a defective or dangerous condition which presented a foreseeable risk of serious injury.”  Fortunately, the Tennessee Court of Appeals did not agree with the trial court’s decision.

I think the Court of Appeals got this one right.  (I’m sure they can all breathe easier now.) They did not give the plaintiff a “pass” on her case.  She still has to convince a jury that the restaurant is liable for her injuries.  But at least now she will have the chance to present her case to the jury.

Posted in Litigation, Injury Law, Insurance Law, Business Law | No Comments »

February 12, 2009 by Zale.

I didn’t expect to win.  I encouraged the client to try to enter into an agreement before the hearing.  It was not a big case, except to my client.  The other side thought they had a lock.  But every now and then, an Appalachian State beats a Michigan (football reference to those of you who don’t follow college sports).  That’s why they play the game.  College sports wouldn’t be much fun if every team entered into an Agreed Order as to the outcome of the game.  Law wouldn’t be much fun if there wasn’t a hearing every now and then.  Sometimes you are surprised.  Sometimes David beats Goliath.  Sometimes a seasoned lawyer’s years of experience just can’t overcome the poor facts of their case or a judge’s opinion.

This was my first win as lead trial counsel.  It wasn’t even in an area that I practice much or have a tremendous amount of confidence or experience, but its a win none the less.  Soon I’ll finish this cigar and send the client a bill.  It’s nice to have happy clients, but its even nicer to have happy clients that don’t mind paying the bil.

Posted in Child Advocacy, General Law | No Comments »

January 29, 2009 by Zale.

I’m a gun owner.  I always have been.  Soon I will have my carry permit.  Here is a great comment from a Tennessee judge to a residential burglary victim,

“There should be a law that law abiding citizens with no felony convictions should own a gun.”

Way to go judge!  He went on to tell the defendant,

“If it had been my house you came in on, you would have wound up at Coulter Funeral Home.”

That would have been a good time to have been in court.  Here’s the whole story.  Check it out.

Posted in Gun Law, Criminal Law | 1 Comment »