View profile

Docket Digest - February 17, 2021

Docket Digest - February 17, 2021
Today’s Docket
Good Afternoon,
Welcome to the Docket Digest Weekly Newsletter! Our goal is to provide Legal News for the Non-Legal Mind. Through daily social media posts and weekly newsletters analyses, we strive to provide current relevant news topics and how they apply to the legal industry. Law school is long and boring, but not the only way to learn about the law… so we are a group of law students curating content for your brain to fully understand!
Follow us on Twitter @DocketDigest and Instagram @DailyDocketDigest for Daily Updates. DM us with general questions or subjects you would like to know more about!
Without further ado… All rise.

Mainstage Story: Dred Scott
Black History Month is all about amplifying black lives, voices, and experiences throughout American history. However, BHM also serves as a necessary reminder of America’s harsh relationship with racism, inequality, and discrimination to always understand where we started and how far we must go. Today we discuss Dred Scott, whose case sparked such disagreement that it partially influenced the nation to fight (literally) for freedom in the Civil War. Furthermore, it thoroughly influenced Congress to amend the constitution to reflect and protect all black individuals and their fundamental rights.
In 1820, as western expansion commenced, conflict arose over which states would be free states and which would be slave states. The Missouri compromise helped settle some of the dispute: Maine would be a free state, Missouri a slave state and anything else above the 36º 30’ latitude line would be free, and anything below that line would be up to those territories to decide. Southerners and northerners began to wonder how this would play out. What if a slave had crossed from slave territory to free territory? Enter: Dred Scott, a slave who accompanied his owner to Wisconsin territory, aka free. Afterwards, they returned to Missouri, a slave state. Dred Scott sued his owner seeking his freedom. He claimed that his entrance into free territory deemed him a free man, like the Missouri Compromise says! The lowest court in Missouri agreed with Dred Scott! However, when Dred Scott’s slave owner appealed to Missouri’s highest court, they disagreed and decided that Dred Scott’s slave status reattached when he reentered Missouri. It’s not over though. Upon Dred Scott’s loss in state court, he decides to bring a new suit in federal court, which makes its way to the United States Supreme Court. Dred Scott argued again, that the Missouri Compromise allowed him to be free because he was on free territory! The court again disagreed with Dred Scott. They said that actually, the Missouri Compromise was unconstitutional: also known as, crumple it up and throw it in the trash! The court said it was unconstitutional because it violated a provision in the constitution that protects people’s property. Essentially the court said that Dred Scott, as a slave, was considered the property of his owner, and when the Missouri Compromise attempted to revoke this property, that violated the constitution.
A note on Federal Courts & Diversity: 
Dred Scott believed that because he was from Missouri, and because his slave owner was a citizen of New York that “Diversity” was satisfied. Diversity is a method one can use to bring their suit in federal court, as opposed to state court when the plaintiff and defendant are citizens of different states. However, in one of the most embarrassing parts of the Dred Scott decision, the judges decided that there actually was no “diversity” here because plaintiff and defendant needed to be citizens of different states, and Dred Scott, as a black individual, regardless of whether or not he was free, was no citizen at all. The court basically told Dred Scott that because he was black, had no right being in federal court. At all. 
Dred Scott & the Decision’s Legacy
The Dred Scott decision has been widely denounced over time: “unquestionably, our court’s worst decision ever,” “stands first in any list of the worst Supreme Court decisions,” “the court’s greatest self-inflicted wound,” and “universally condemned the as the U.S. Supreme Court’s worst decision ever”. After the Civil War the Dred Scott decision in its entirety was voided by the ratification of the 13th and 14th amendment, abolishing slavery, and guaranteeing citizenship for “all persons born or naturalized in the United States…” respectfully. 
Historical Fact: Dred Scott and his family were formally emancipated by his owner just three months after the Supreme Court denied them their freedom.
Other Happening's...
Imagine being a bank and sending someone the wrong Venmo…
Citibank will not be able to rectify one of the biggest blunders in banking history, a US District judge has ruled. The error was an accidental transfer of $900 million by Citibank to lenders of Revlon, a cosmetics company. In the transaction, Citibank was acting as an agent of Revlon. It was supposed to send $8 million in interest payments to lenders of Revlon. But accidentally, it sent an amount that was more than 100 times the original amount. 
In August 2020, Citibank filed a lawsuit seeking a return of its money. However, around 10 investment advisory firms have still not returned $500 million of the accidental transfer. The law around the spending of funds received from accidental transfers is usually strict. A Pennsylvania couple has been hit with felony charges for spending money that they had received by mistake. However, New York has an exception to this law and allows for a “discharge-for-value-defense.” The defense allows a beneficiary to keep the money received from an accidental transfer if they are entitled to the money, and they were not aware that it was an unintentional transfer. Revlon’s lenders used this defense as they thought that Citibank was sending the amount as prepayments for a loan that the bank owed them. The judge agreed with the lender’s argument and ruled that Citibank, “a highly sophisticated financial institution,” could not have made this transfer by mistake, and to believe that it was a mistake would be “borderline irrational.”
Back For More: $188 million Powerball Winner sued by ex-Fiancé.
Marie Holmes, a woman from Brunswick Country, North Carolina, had won the $188 million Powerball jackpot back in 2015. This win was the largest jackpot win ever in the history of North Carolina. After taxes, she was able to keep around $88 million of the winnings and made elaborate plans of spending the money. 
According to the complaint filed by Lamarr Andre McDow, her ex-fiancé, she had spent a significant amount of the money on him. The complaint states that McDow and Holmes had started dating back in 2012 and eventually had two kids together. In November 2014, McDow was arrested and charged for drug trafficking, and two months later, Holmes won the lottery. Before McDow was convicted and sentenced to ten years in prison, Holmes had bought him a $250,000 Chevy Stingray, clothes, and jewelry with a total worth of $100,000 amongst other gifts. McDow has stated that he made Holmes his power of attorney before he was sentenced and authorized her to store and maintain his possessions. However, once in prison, Holmes broke up with him and sold many of his possessions. According to McDow, this was a breach of her fiduciary duties. He is suing her for compensation for his sold assets. Meanwhile, Holmes’ attorneys have filed a motion to dismiss.  Citing numerous deficiencies in the suit filed by McDow, including the lawsuit was filed outside of the three-year statute of limitations.
From the Past Week...
Docket Digest 📁⚖️
Sacha Baron Cohen's lawyers have filed a motion for a summary judgment asking the court to dismiss the defamation case filed against the British comedian, CBS, and Showtime by Roy Moore.
Docket Digest 📁⚖️
The rapper trio from Georgia, Migos (comprised of Quavious Marshall, Kiari Cephus, Kirsnick Ball), have dropped their lawsuit against the talent lawyer Damien Granderson. The trio is commonly known by their stage names Takeoff, Offset, and Quavo.
Docket Digest 📁⚖️
A fan has filed a lawsuit against the NFL, alleging several disruptions and glitches to last year’s Superbowl game between San Franciso 49ers and Kansas City Chiefs.
Docket Digest 📁⚖️
Brendon Nelson, a Robinhood user, has filed a suit against the online brokerage firm by accusing Robinhood of denying access to its users to buy shares of GameStop (“GME”). The lawsuit seeks class-action status against Robinhood.
Docket Digest 📁⚖️
The rapper A Boogie wit da Hoodie has been sued by a couple from New Jersey seeking damages worth more than $260,000... More Info 👇
Docket Digest 📁⚖️
Jeff Bezos, requested before the Los Angeles County Superior Court, demanding his girlfriend's brother Michael Sanchez to pay him $1,676,919.50 in lawyer fees and $36,019.26 in other costs. 👇
Docket Digest 📁⚖️
@SUBWAY uses the words “flaked tuna,” “freshly baked bread,” and “crisp veggies” to describe its tuna sandwich... But according to a recent lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, Subway might be lying to you. 👇
Thanks for reading, see you next week!
Are you a law student interested in writing for the Docket Digest? or being generally involved? Apply Here
We would love to hear your feedback! Take Our Survey
Mainstage Story - written by Sami Raphaelson
Various Content - written by Alexander M. Baron
Powered by Baron Brother Productions Inc.
Disclaimer: The information contained in this newsletter is provided for informational and educational purposes only. It (Our Content) should not be construed as legal advice on any subject matter. You (The Reader) should not act or refrain from acting on the basis of any content included in this newsletter without seeking legal or other professional advice.
Did you enjoy this issue?
Docket Digest - Weekly Newsletter

Weekly Newsletter & Social Media with a mission to cover Legal News for the Non-Legal Mind. Topics include: SCOTUS, Celebrity, Sports, and many more!

In order to unsubscribe, click here.
Powered by Revue