State Mobile Apps Catalog

The National Association of State Chief Information Officers recently put together a State Mobile Apps Catalog with information about government apps provided by all 50 states. Currently, it contains over 160 apps in a number of categories such as business and corporate filings, legislatures, professional license search, and tax and payment services. You can choose to view the government apps in each state or view apps by category.

Right now, the available Texas apps are the Texas Driver Handbook, Texas.gov, and TX Senate Business & Commerce. Once you find an app of interest, the catalog provides a short description and a link to the app store where the app can be downloaded.

Touch Tax Mobile App

The Touch Tax Mobile (Tax Deskbook App), by Com-Lab Mobile, provides tax students and attorneys convenient offline access to the entire Internal Revenue Code  as well as all of the Treasury Regulations. The Internal Revenue Bulletins (which have Revenue  Rulings and Procedures, Announcements, and Notices) are available from July 7, 2003, with the option of linking to the PDF copy of each issue from the IRS's website. This app is currently available for Apple and Android devices as well as the Blackberry Playbook tablet with the costs ranging from $0.99 to $5.99, depending on your device. The statutes and regulations are current through April 2012, which is consistent with the selected tax statutes and regs. that are in the supplements required for tax law courses. Users can browse the primary tax sources and use the basic keyword search feature as well as obtain a list of regulations related to particular code sections.

Tax Almanacs

Tax almanacs save tax attorneys an enormous amount of time by providing quick practical tax related information in one paperback source. Specifically, they contain tax tables such as those related to 2012 tax rates and earned income tax credit as well as convenient steps for preparing returns, changes in tax statutes and regulations, and an overview and analysis of virtually every tax issue ranging from partnership issues and business expenses to charitable donations. There are annotations to primary sources of tax law such as the code, treasury regulations, case law, and pronouncements as well as references to practice guides such as the Standard Federal Tax Reporter (CCH) and the United State Tax Reporter (RIA).

The library has the following tax almanacs in it's collection, which are updated annually:

• 2013 U.S. Master Tax Guide (CCH) (KF6365.C53)
• Federal Tax Handbook 2013 (RIA/Thomson Reuters, also available on WestlawNext and the Thomson Reuters Checkpoint database) (KF6289.P7)
• 2013 U.S. Master Multistate Corporate Tax Guide (CCH) (KF6465.Z95U15)
• 2013 U.S. Master Estate and Gift Tax Guide (CCH) (KF6572.Z9 F4)
• 2013 State Tax Handbook (CCH) (KF6750.Z95C6)

Legal Resources to Help You Celebrate ‘International Migratory Bird Day’

Tomorrow, May 11, is International Migratory Bird Day.  In honor of this holiday, Nota Bene is proud to present this collection of resources as a reference when dealing with issues relating to migratory birds, and as a source of legal information to delight and amaze your friends.*

The United States first addressed the state of migratory birds with the Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918, followed by the Migratory Bird Conservation Act of 1929.  Since then, a number of statutes have been passed to further enhance protections for migratory birds.  Updates to statutes and regulations, along with general information about migratory birds, are available from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 

Local birdwatchers already know that Texas is a prime destination for birding.  For those interested in becoming birdwatchers, the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department has published guides on migratory birds and how to watch them.   

Birdwatchers may not be aware that laws protecting birds cover feathers as well as the birds themselves and their eggs.  Possessing even part of a protected bird is punishable by up to six months in jail and a $5,000 fine, as there is no way to distinguish a naturally shed feather picked up off of the ground from a feather plucked by a poacher.  The only exception is the Eagle Feather Law, which limits the taking of birds, feathers or eggs to persons licensed to use them in limited numbers for display in zoos, scientific research or Native American religious practices.  Other birdwatchers who might want a souvenir should either take a photograph or consider buying a Migratory Bird Hunting and Conservation Stamp, a/k/a the Federal Duck Stamp.

For those interested, it is illegal to hunt migratory birds on their holiday: Federal and Texas laws limit how and when one may hunt migratory birds, and no migratory birds are currently in season in Texas.  In honor of International Migratory Bird Day, avid hunters should bag themselves a Duck Stamp instead, since you can’t hunt migratory birds without one.

Have a safe and happy International Migratory Bird Day.

 

* Warning: not all friends are delighted and amazed by legal information.  Please use responsibly.

Who Owns Superman?

Superman, the Man of Steel, was born in 1938, and has been involved in copyright litigation almost as long.  Mr. Mxyzptlk himself could not have created as convoluted a history of a copyright dispute as the one that involved the rights to the Superman property. 

The Superman character was the brain-child of Jerome Siegel and Joe Shuster. Their idea, an alien comes to Earth and has super-powers was a new one at the time.  These two Brainiacs sold the exclusive world-wide rights to Superman to Detective Comics (“DC”) for $130.00 and took employment with DC. Superman debuted in the comic-book format in Action Comics #1. He was an instant hit.

Siegel and Shuster filed their first lawsuit against DC in 1947 alleging that DC was not paying them their fair share of the profits that DC was reaping from the superhero. After trial the “official referee” found that DC had paid valuable consideration for the rights to Superman and the agreement was valid. Soon after the decision came down the parties agreed to a payment to be made to Siegel and Shuster. 

In 1969 Siegel and Shuster again filed suit in anticipation of the expiration of the initial copyright term. They were asserting that they, and not DC, were the owners of the renewal rights to the Superman copyright. In what can hardly be considered a Bizarro ruling, the court once again ruled against Siegel and Shuster stating that the initial grant of rights included the right to the renewal term even though that term had not yet vested. 

In 1975 an article appeared in the New York Times detailing the poverty that Siegel and Shuster were then living in. Not wanting to be portrayed as a company of Lex Luthors, Warner Communications (parent of DC comics) agreed to pay health insurance for both men and to make annual payments to them for the remainder of their lives and that these payments would cease if either Siegel and/or Shuster or their representatives asserted any rights to the Superman copyright. In addition, provision was made for Siegel’s wife.  Warner emphasized that this agreement was voluntary and in consideration for the duo’s past service and present circumstances. Warner later increased the payments and on two occasions paid both men bonuses. In 1985 Warner changed the agreement so that they would pay Siegel’s wife the same benefits they were paying her husband if he predeceased her. Siegel died in 1996 and Warner continued to pay his widow.

The Copyright Act of 1976 changed copyright law in many ways, including extending the copyright term for renewal period and also providing a right to terminate a prior grant of rights made before January 1, 1978 in order to renegotiate these agreements. In 1997 the heirs of Siegel and Shuster filed for termination of all previous agreements (the 1938, 1948, the 1975 agreements). Negotiations continued even after the terminations were to have taken effect in 1999. A proposed settlement in the form of a letter dated October 19, 2001 was passed back and forth and the terms were agreed to, but there was trouble when attempts were made to reduce formalize the final agreement. The heirs asserted that Warner Communications was the equivalent of Darkseid, the heirs fired several sets of lawyers, and the settlement letter was repudiated, and it appeared that no settlement was reached. 

Another lawsuit was filed in 2004. This litigation found the 2001 settlement letter to be non-binding  and the terminations of the prior agreements were valid. This opinion was overturned on appeal.  Further termination notices were sent in 2012 and another lawsuit was filed.

 April 18, 2013 was the Doomsday of the ongoing disputes. In the words of U.S. District Court judge Otis D. Wright II this “litigation of superhero proportions now draws to a close.”  Judge Wright found the October 2001 letter agreement binding on the parties. Under this interpretation, after the filing of the 1997 terminations, the parties negotiated a settlement in which DC was granted all of the Siegel’s rights to all Superman properties. 

Is this really the end?  Judge Wright ends his opinion stating that “to the extent that any party contends any delay in performance or other breach gives rise to any damages, such a claim is properly subject to a separate state-court action for breach of contract.” It almost seems that, like a comic book, we may have to wait for next month’s issue to come out to see how it ends.

And Now, the Exciting Conclusion to "Which Justice Said That?"!

The Justice who once said,

I do not think the Supreme Court lives in a vacuum. It reads the newspapers. I suppose it is influenced by the reaction of a society to its decisions; at least I hope it is. I think it should be.

Is . . .

5. Antonin Scalia!!

(See Nomination of Judge Antonin Scalia: Hearings Before the S. Comm. on the Judiciary, 99th Cong., S. Hrg. 99-1064, at 34 (1986).)

[Make of it what you will.]

It's Time to Play "Which Justice Said That?"!

In this week's episode, a look back at a comment on the desirability of the Supreme Court's responsiveness to public reaction to its decisions.

Welcome, ladies and gentlemen, to this week's exciting installment of "Which Justice Said That?". And, without further ado, let's get right to this week's quote:

During the hearings on his nomination to the Supreme Court of the United States of America, this nominee declared,

I do not think the Supreme Court lives in a vacuum. It reads the newspapers. I suppose it is influenced by the reaction of a society to its decisions; at least I hope it is. I think it should be.

Now:

Which . . . Justice . . . Said That?!

1. Samuel Anthony Alito, Jr.
2. Stephen G. Breyer
3. Anthony M. Kennedy
4. John G. Roberts, Jr.
5. Antonin Scalia
6. Clarence Thomas

Feel free to put your guess in the Comments section below. Come back tomorrow for the exciting conclusion to this episode of "Which Justice Said That?"!!