alexandriabrown Profile picture
Jul 3, 2023 16 tweets 4 min read Read on X
Good morning and welcome to Twitter Law School! Today's topic is how facts are found in court, what appellate courts do with those facts, what stipulations are, why they are important, and how stipulations won 303 Creative. Get your caffeine conveyance of choice and let's get it.
American jurisprudence involves applying the law to the facts of the case before the court. Thus, it is very important to establish what the facts of the case are. Facts are decided at the trial court level, either by jury or, in non-jury matters, by the judge.
Facts are decided at the trial level because the trial level is where live testimony is presented and, as a result, the trial court finder of fact can best determine credibility. Even video testimony doesn't convey all nuances. Also, objections are handled by the trial court.
When I say the facts of the case must be decided at the trial court level, I mean every single fact. Everything. As you can imagine, this can be very time consuming. For example, if you are going to introduce a copy of, say, medical records, you can't just put those in evidence.
You have to have a person from the medical provider show up to testify that the records are true and correct copies of the records on file. If you want a copy of a government documents, you have to order a certified copy that contains that true and correct copy attestation on it.
This is massively time consuming. As a result, courts have developed short cuts. Certified copies are deemed to be true and correct so long as the certification is there. Courts can take judicial notice of facts that are established elsewhere (sunrise/sunset time, for example).
The biggest tool used to do this is called stipulations. Stipulations are statements of fact that are agreed to by all the parties in the case. When the parties stipulate to a matter, that fact is established as true for that case. The court rules based on that agreement.
Courts LOVE stipulations and push parties to enter into them. It saves time and it is one less matter for appellate review. Remember, appellate courts do not determine the facts independently. Appellate courts review findings of fact by comparing the findings to the record.
The appellate court is limited to the record, which consists of all the evidence and testimony at the trial court. The parties do not get to introduce new evidence to the appellate court. The appellate court can say a ruling on a fact was erroneous but it can't take new evidence.
So stipulations are very important because that is an absolute determination of a fact and the parties cannot contest it on appeal. The parties can only contest how the law applies to the facts. Thus, a case can be won or lost on stipulations. And Colorado did just that.
Here are the stipulations for 303 Creative. The moment that CO stipulated that Ms. Smith's services were expressive, the case was over. Why? Because expressive speech has long enjoyed robust First Amendment protections. Conceding it was expressive invokes strict scrutiny.

Strict scrutiny means that the state must have both a compelling interest and that there are no less restrictive alternatives to secure that interest. It is the highest standard of review. Both the district court and the 10n Circuit conceded that and then misapplied the test.
It should have been clear that conceding it was expressive speech was going to result in another loss before SCOTUS. This Court isn't the Masterpiece court. This Court was always going to find the strict scrutiny test would fail. It is beyond me why this stipulation was entered.
It is going to be very interesting indeed to see if, in the future, CO is going to try to claim that creating a custom good is NOT an expressive activity. Why? Because CO just made a judicial admission that such activities are expressive and courts take that seriously indeed.
So the moral of the story is that it is very important to get the facts determined in your favor at the trial court level, stipulations are a great way to do that, and you better know all the ramifications when you enter into a stipulation. Here. Have a red panda. /fin
@ZombieJohnGotti Oh also note that it is not just wedding stuff she refuses to do. The other things, frankly, are what any smart business person would refuse to do.

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with alexandriabrown

alexandriabrown Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @alexthechick

Oct 15
🧵Good afternoon and welcome to Twitter Law School. Today's topic is preliminary injunctions (yes, again), the appurtenant security requirement, and the difference between dissolution of a preliminary injunction and dismissal of an action. Grab a snack, a drink, and let's get it.
A very quick refresher: a preliminary injunction is an injunction which is issued by a court before the court enters a final ruling on the merits. The point of a preliminary injunction is to keep the parties in the same position as they were in before litigation started.
Both words are essential in the term preliminary injunction. Preliminary refers to the fact that the order is being issued before discovery, pre-trial hearings, and other merits evaluations have been conducted. Injunction means to enjoin (lawyer for stop) a party from acting.
Read 20 tweets
Oct 2
🧵 Let's chat about EMTALA, emergency Medicaid, and the collision of public policy and financial reality.

Get caffeine conveyance beverage of choice, a little snack, get comfy, and let's get it.
EMTALA is the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act. This was signed into law in 1986. This is the law that requires all hospitals that are Medicare participating and have emergency rooms to treat everyone who shows up at the ER regardless of ability to pay.
Briefly, EMTALA requires that anyone who shows up at an ER must be given an appropriate medical screening examination to determine if an emergency medical condition exists. If so, then the patient must be provided stabilizing care or transfer to a hospital that can do so.
Read 16 tweets
Sep 23
🧵Good morning and welcome to Twitter Law School. Today will be a refresher on injunctions, stays, and merits decisions. This will be followed by an overview of Humphrey's Executor and why it matters. Grab caffeine conveyance beverage of choice and let's get it.
Let's start with defining terms: an injunction is a court order that compels a party to do or not to do something. A preliminary injunction is an injunction that is a court order that is entered while a decision on the merits of the case are pending. That's why it's preliminary.
Why would a court issue a preliminary injunction? Because a party can suffer harm during the time it takes to a case to get through the court system to a merits ruling. A preliminary injunction is intended to keep the parties in the state they are in at the time a case is started
Read 15 tweets
Sep 18
🧵Following is my attempt to outline why I believe the claims of but muh free speech re: Jimmy Kimmel are being met with outright mocking and hostility. These are in no particular order of importance. Grab caffeine conveyance drink of choice and let's get it.
1. People are sick of clown nose on clown nose off. Clown nose on close nose off was coined about Jon Stewart's schtick of making a political statement and then, when he received criticism, claiming I'm just a comedian! It's just a joke! Can't you take a joke!
It's an obvious and maddening attempt to avoid taking any responsibility at all for making the statement. People are well aware of this tactic and are utterly sick of it.
Read 15 tweets
Aug 21
🧵 This afternoon's ponderings are about the intersection of weaponzied empathy, compassion fatigue, donor fatigue, and politics. Get beverage of choice, a nice snack, and let's get it.
I'll start with defining my terms: Weaponized empathy - the use of empathy for others' situtations as a tool to demand specific actions and emotional responses concerning those situations.
Compassion fatigue - the mental, emotional, and physical fatigue an individual feels upon having provided care for or upon having expressed attention and concern for a person or situation over an extended period of time to the point that the individual feels overwhelmed.
Read 18 tweets
Jul 28
🧵Good morning and welcome to Twitter Law School. Today we'll be reviewing consent decrees - what are they, whether they're are good or bad, and why I think the DOJ seeking the termination of consent decrees is a good thing. Grab caffeine conveyance of choice and let's get it.
A consent decree is a legal agreement between parties to a lawsuit in which they agree to terms to resolve the matter and that agreement is then signed by a judge. Here's the LII definition -
law.cornell.edu/wex/consent_de…
Let's break it down into two parts - consent and decree. Consent is straightforward. Both parties agree to the terms and, by signing the agreement, they consent to the terms and the enforcement of it.
Read 22 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal

Or Donate anonymously using crypto!

Ethereum

0xfe58350B80634f60Fa6Dc149a72b4DFbc17D341E copy

Bitcoin

3ATGMxNzCUFzxpMCHL5sWSt4DVtS8UqXpi copy

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us!

:(