https://www.facebook.com/294228727300769/

Owner at Daniel R. Schramm, L.L.C. (Law Practice)

Home
United States
Chesterfield, MO
Owner at Daniel R. Schramm, L.L.C. (Law Practice)

I retired as owner of Daniel R. Schramm, L.L.C., and became inactive effective October 5, 2023. For close to sixteen years. Louis.

nt Louis University School of Law. I also have taught business law as part of the adjunct faculty at Maryville University and at the University of Missouri - St. The most unique aspect of my law practice is my commitment to preparing persuasive written briefs and oral arguments. Visit the Reported Cases section of my Company Website for a list of some of my more successful appellate decisions. Sample Publications have been posted on my Company Website and LinkedIn Pulse. (DISCLAIMERS: Past results afford no guarantee of future results. Each case is different and must be judged on its own merits. Missouri rules generally prohibit lawyers from advertising that they specialize in particular areas of the law. This business page listing should not be construed to suggest such specialization. The choice of a lawyer is an important decision and should not be based solely upon advertisements.)

09/06/2024

A Cole County Circuit judge struck down Secretary of State Jay Ashcroft’s misleading language about Amendment 3. Once again, Ashcroft was charged with misleading the voters about the substance of the proposed amendment to protect reproductive rights. Ashcroft falsely stated that a "yes' vote would enshrine abortion rights at any time during a pregnancy; and he falsely claimed the amendment would prohibit legal recourse against those whose abortion acts might hurt or kill pregnant women. The stricken language was on the Secretary of State website and was scheduled to be posted at polling places.

Walker, a Republican, said Ashcroft’s version is “unfair, inaccurate, insufficient and misleading and is hereby vacated.”

09/01/2024

Opponents of Missouri Amendment 3 have filed an eleventh-hour lawsuit to block the proposed abortion amendment from appearing on the November ballot. Opponents claim the "fundamental right to reproductive freedom" in the proposed amendment is too broad and covers more than one topic. They also argue the initiative petition supposedly should include a laundry list of the statutes and constitutional provisions the amendment would overturn. Initiative petitions do not customarily provide such detailed information. And the impact of Amendment 3 on some of those potentially affected statutes - like "trap" laws - is uncertain and probably would have to await judicial resolution.
The primary argument about multiple topics is akin to arguing a point relied on in an appellate brief is "multifarious." Admittedly, appellate judges have been all over the map on this kind of issue. But for constitutional purposes, I'm fairly confident this argument won't pass the smell test. Proponents of the proposed constitutional amendment should not be forced to file completely separate petitions for closely related reproductive rights like abortion, contraception, fertility treatment, and prenatal and postnatal care. What the opponents are demanding is unduly cumbersome and just not practical.
As a volunteer for Missourians for Constitutional Freedom, I will be following the litigation closely.

A pair of Republican lawmakers and an anti-abortion activist filed a lawsuit seeking to block an abortion-rights amendment from the ballot

07/31/2024

Gallup reports the approval ratings of the U.S. Supreme Court remain down in the low forties. Republican voters have the Court they always wanted and generally approve. But Democrats and independents disagree. The Court has made a radical shift to the right on abortion, guns, religion, presidential immunity, deregulation, and other issues. And the Court has been plagued by ethical lapses. These developments could make the composition of the Supreme Court a critical issue in this election.

Americans' approval of the U.S. Supreme Court remains mired in the low 40s, where it has been since 2021.

07/08/2024

Just over two years ago, I wrote an article about what I feared would be a "grand upheaval in federal administrative law." In the two years that have ensued, the conservative supermajority of the U.S. Supreme Court has done its work on the subject. This article summarizes some of the major cases showing the "grand upheaval" is here.

I wrote an article just over two years ago predicting what I feared was going to be a “grand upheaval in federal administrative law.” In the ensuing two years, the conservative supermajority of the U.S. Supreme Court has worked its will on the subject. I think it’s safe to say the “grand uph...

07/01/2024

The Supreme Court for the first time created an immunity of a president from criminal prosecution. The conservative supermajority did not give Trump absolute immunity for all charges, but they gave Trump much of what he asked for. The Court is now requiring the lower courts to go through a whole range of alleged actions by Trump in the indictment to determine what is purely private and what is official conduct entitled to what the Court called "presumptive immunity." And the lower courts have to sort out what that distinction means for trial - if there ever is one. The Court completely ruled out any questions over whether Trump pressured Justice Department officials to violate the law. This is a monumental development on constitutional issues of presidential power and immunity. The three liberal justices dissented and argued that the decision poses a grave threat to democracy.

The U.S. Supreme Court found on Monday that Donald Trump cannot be prosecuted for official actions taken as president, but can for private acts, in a landmark ruling recognizing for the first time any form of presidential immunity from prosecution.

06/27/2024

Today was a day in which the Supreme Court forged ahead with its crusade, in the infamous words of Steve Bannon, for the "deconstruction of the administrative state." The Court ruled 6-3 to deprive the SEC of its ability to pursue a securities fraud claim before an administrative law judge. Instead, the SEC now must give the regulated party a jury trial in an Article III court. The Court also ruled more narrowly, 5-4. to block the EPA from enforcing its interstate power plan rule more favorably to downwind states. The administrative trifecta will be complete if, as expected, the Court overrules Chevron deference.

The Supreme Court has stripped the Securities and Exchange Commission of a major tool in fighting securities fraud in a decision that also could have far-reaching effects on other regulatory agencies.

06/22/2024

In stark contrast to its "bump stock" ruling, the Supreme Court overwhelmingly approved a federal law that restricted gun possession to people subject to domestic abuse orders. Writing for the majority, Chief Justice Roberts adopted a more flexible or, dare I say it, "pragmatic" approach to the originalist holding in Bruen. Roberts ruled a valid gun restriction did not have to have a "twin" application at the time of the founding. It was enough that laws since that time limited gun possession when people posed a serious danger to the safety of others. The ruling prompted multiple concurring opinions on what "originalism" under the Second Amendment means. On what may prove to be an important development, Justice Barrett's views on the subject appear to show a rift with other conservative justices.

The U.S. Supreme Court on Friday upheld a federal law that makes it a crime for people under domestic violence restraining orders to have guns, handing a victory to President Joe Biden's administration as the justices opted not to further widen fi****ms rights after a major expansion in 2022.

06/17/2024

Professor Michael Dorf argues that the outcome in the "bump stock" case was dictated more by the justices’ policy views about guns than questions of statutory interpretation. I generally agree. But I also think Justice Breyer’s more pragmatic approach to statutory interpretation would have yielded a different outcome. I am now reading Breyer’s new book. And I think Chevron deference would have produced a different result. The majority’s current obsession with textualism shows how words can be twisted to achieve policy objectives. One of those policy objectives is to gut federal regulations.

Cornell Law professor Michael C. Dorf discusses the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent 6-3 decision in Garland v. Cargill, which invalidated a federal regulation banning bump stocks by finding that they do n...

06/12/2024

Here is an updated version of an article I wrote about a dissenting opinion issued on the points-relied-on rule. This subject became a personal cause for me as I went off into retirement. This version of my article covers the implications of a recent order denying an application for transfer in the particular case. This revised article is being published on Substack.

Last November, I wrote an article published in Missouri Lawyers Weekly called “Judicial Word Games and Hypertechnicalities.”[1] I suggested it was time for the Missouri Supreme Court to reconsider the rule on what are called Points Relied On. The rule in question is Rule 84.04(d). At the very le...

06/04/2024

This is my first Substack publication. This is an update of an article I wrote back in 2018 when Judge S. James Otero dismissed a defamation suit brought by Stormy Daniels against Donald Trump based on the defense of "rhetorical hyperbole." This new article explores the same kind of hyperbole used by Trump in the more recent E. Jean Carroll defamation cases. To say the least, the Daniels and Carroll cases had dramatically different results.

My personal Substack. Click to read Daniel’s Substack, by Daniel R. Schramm, a Substack publication. Launched a day ago.

05/04/2024

Missourians for Constitutional Freedom submitted about 380,000 signatures for a referendum petition to put reproductive rights on the ballot. This was more than twice the number they needed. The proposed constitutional amendment would restore the Roe viability standard for abortions in Missouri. Secretary of State Jay Ashcroft, a strident opponent of the petition, must now decide whether to contest the signatures. The legislature also is grappling with an opposing constitutional amendment to increase the burden on voters necessary to pass the referendum petition. Will Missouri follow the path of conservative states like Kansas, Kentucky and Ohio and vote to protect abortion rights?

Advocates have turned in more than twice the needed number of signatures to put a proposal to legalize abortion on the Missouri ballot.

04/28/2024

Last fall, I wrote an article published in Missouri Lawyers Weekly called "Judicial Word Games and Hypertechnicalities." I suggested in the article that it was time for the Missouri Supreme Court to reconsider the rule on what are called Points Relied On. Since my article was published, other lawyers and judges also have come forward and offered some criticism of the rule. This new article summarizes a compelling dissenting opinion on the subject issued by Judge Alok Ahuja of the Missouri Court of Appeals for the Western District.

Last fall, I wrote an article published in Missouri Lawyers Weekly called "Judicial Word Games and Hypertechnicalities." I suggested in the article...

Address

14915 Greenberry Hill Court
Chesterfield, MO
63017

Telephone

+13145603326

Website

facebook.com

Alerts

Be the first to know and let us send you an email when Owner at Daniel R. Schramm, L.L.C. (Law Practice) posts news and promotions. Your email address will not be used for any other purpose, and you can unsubscribe at any time.

Contact The Business

Send a message to Owner at Daniel R. Schramm, L.L.C. (Law Practice):

Shortcuts

Want your business to be the top-listed Law Practice in Chesterfield?

Our Story

I am a lawyer practicing in the areas of appellate advocacy, including state and federal appeals, research projects, trial briefs, business law, corporations, limited liability companies, partnerships, estate planning,, wills, trusts, business succession planning and wealth preservation. For close to sixteen years. I taught appellate advocacy to law students as an Assistant Adjunct Professor for the Moot Court Program at Saint Louis University School of Law. I also have taught business law as part of the adjunct faculty at Maryville University and at the University of Missouri - St. Louis. The most unique aspect of my law practice is my commitment to preparing persuasive written briefs and oral arguments. Visit the Reported Cases section of my Company Website for a list of some of my more successful appellate decisions. Sample briefs have been posted on JD Supra. (DISCLAIMERS: Past results afford no guarantee of future results. Each case is different and must be judged on its own merits. Missouri rules generally prohibit lawyers from advertising that they specialize in particular areas of the law. This business page listing should not be construed to suggest such specialization. The choice of a lawyer is an important decision and should not be based solely upon advertisements.)