Official Transcript of the U.S. Supreme Court case CTS Corporation v. Peter Waldburger, argued by Professor John Korzen

Professor John Korzen (’81 BA, ’91 JD) argued a N.C. groundwater cleanup case in U.S. Supreme Court on April 23, 2014. The case is one of the Appellate Advocacy Clinic appeals. Emma Maddux (’13) argued the case in the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, in Richmond, Va., on Jan. 30, 2013, as part of the Appellate Advocacy Clinic.

Korzen is the director of the Appellate Advocacy Clinic. “All 10 of the Clinic’s current students have been helping with the research, briefing, and the oral argument preparation, and they will all attend the argument, too,” Korzen said. “Since 2007, we have gone every year to hear oral arguments at the Supreme Court, and this year’s visit coincides perfectly with one of our own appeals.”

The full transcript is available at the link below. Reading the transcript of Korzen’s argument, Professor Christine Coughlin of Wake Forest Law says, “Professor Korzen was brilliant and gave a very impressive argument.  I’m looking forward to using transcript when I teach oral advocacy next year. ”

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES CTS CORPORATION, Petitioner v. PETER WALDBURGER, ET AL.

The above­ entitled matter came on for oral argument before the Supreme Court of the United States at 11:15 a.m. with appearances: Brian J. Murray, Esq., Chicago, Ill.; on behalf of Petitioner. Joseph R. Palmore,  Assistant to the Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D.C.; for  United States, as amicus curiae, supporting Petitioner. John J. Korzen, ESQ., Winston-­Salem, N.C..; on behalf  of Respondents.

Below is the beginning excerpt of the oral argument of Professor John J. Korzen on behalf of the Respondents.

MR. KORZEN:  Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court: I’d like to start with the plain wording of Alderson Reporting Company 9658, but first just say a sentence or two about the purpose.  The purpose of Section 9658 is to preserve claims for latent harm from environmental releases, from a facility of hazardous waste, until the person discovers the cause of that latent harm.  And latent  harm, which is all over the legislative history, but which neither of my friends for the Petitioners  mentioned, latent harm is what this statute was passed for.  And latent harm includes things such as the groundwater contamination in this case, or cancer such as in the Camp Lejeune case.

Read the full transcript on the U.S. Supreme Court site.