A Jurisprudential Feast Put on Ice

The consequences of failing to preserve issues for appellate review.

Today the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit decided Sheet Metal Workers' Health and Welfare Fund of North Carolina v. Law Office of Michael A. Demayo, LLP. The opinion by Judge Readler begins:

For those who enjoy unsettled legal questions, who would not welcome the opportunity to navigate a labyrinth of ancient equitable doctrines nested within a federal statute, with little precedent to inform that review? All of that is presented in this appeal. Add to that the amici participation of a federal agency, and the table seemingly is set for a jurisprudential feast. But resolution of those issues must remain on ice, so to speak, because they were not preserved for appellate review. On that basis, we affirm the judgment of the district court.

And thus, the feast is postponed.

Comments

[Sidney r finkel]

Are we dealing with a bunch of unqualified attorneys? And if so what does that say about the legal profession and law school education?

[Kenneth Almquist]

The amount of money at stake in this case was approximately $7200, so the attorney or attorneys representing the plaintiff before the District Court may not have been the best.

[Dilan Esper]

Bork said the Supreme Court would be an "intellectual feast".

[Squirrelloid]

I think an explanation of what the potential legal issues were would have been far more interesting.

[John F. Carr]

If I understand this, the insurance fund had a right of subrogation rather than a lien. Is there a meaningful difference? If there had been a lien, would the lawyer be personally responsible for the shortage?