November 2006 Archives

Why?

[David H. Baker, the Lighter Association's general counsel] said association members want mandatory standards to help reduce their legal liability. He explained that members often get sued for fires resulting from malfunctioning lighters. In many cases, he said, the lighter was destroyed in the fire, so there's no proof of who made the lighter. But the easiest targets are the well-known brands such as Bic, Scripto and Swedish Match -- companies that are members of the association, Baker explained.

Chinese off-brand import lighters are only 30% likely to meet voluntary industry safety standards, and manufacturers are not just facing the cheaper competition from the imports, but apparently also having to swallow liability from accidents caused by the more dangerous imports.

For those who care about these things, Justinian Lane demonstrates a fundamental lack of reading comprehension in a response to my earlier post. Lane writes: "If I do the very thing I oppose, that does indeed make me a hypocrite." This is technically inaccurate in a prescriptivist sense (look it up), but even under the descriptivist definition, Lane continues to confuse the idea of "I believe that X is bad public policy" with "I believe those who take advantage of X are immoral." This is precisely the error I pointed out in the original post, but Lane says nothing to rationalize the conflation other than to repeat the assertion. He then proceeds to insult me for taking a legal tax deduction. Let's be clear: I don't oppose individuals taking Schedule A deductions for state taxes; that's just common sense, and one's tax rate is already higher to reflect the fact that deductions are available. I oppose the government's policy of offering deductions for state taxes. There's no hypocrisy, any more than there is hypocrisy because Lane pays his federal taxes even though his taxes are used to support the war in Iraq or some other government spending that he might object to, or because Lane votes for an elected official who doesn't agree with Lane on every single jot and tittle.

Lane opposes making people better off through lower prices and higher wages, as Wal-Mart does; that is his right, and (unlike John Edwards) he can feel good about his abnegation that he goes without a toolbox because Wal-Mart is the only store that provides a reasonably priced model (though I don't see Lane demanding to pay his supermarket and other stores more money to reflect the fact that they lowered prices to match Wal-Mart's competition, so he's not completely innocent of taking advantage of the benefits Wal-Mart brings to the economy). But it's not remotely analogous to the scenario I describe.

I was a guest Wednesday afternoon on Lars Larson's nationwide talk show, based at Portland Oregon's KXL, to discuss federal judge James Robertson's ruling ordering the U.S. Treasury to redesign U.S. paper money so as not to exclude blind users from reasonable access (see yesterday's post). And at 10 a.m. Mountain Standard Time this morning (Thursday) I'm scheduled to join Mike Rosen on his popular show based at Denver's KOA, on the same topic.

Some university-based researchers are studying the world of political and policy blogs, and would like readers to answer some anonymous questions. You can take the survey here.

"Lots of kids, when very young, worry about monsters under the bed. Even when Mom or Dad comes in to reassure them, the kids may still worry. But as they get older, they begin to check under the bed themselves. And eventually, after many monster-free nights, they figure out that the danger is purely imaginary and they stop worrying. You would think by now that gun-control supporters would have made the same progress on one of their most fearsome demons: the licensing of citizens to carry concealed firearms. But they seem to be trapped in a recurring nightmare that exists only in their minds." (Steve Chapman, "Concealed weapons a threat - to ignorance", syndicated/Baltimore Sun, Nov. 29).

Lyons Partnership, which owns the rights to the children's character Barney, has backed off its threats against the proprietor of a parody website that portrays the lumbering purple dinosaur as evil (see Sept. 6). (Dawn C. Chmielewski, "Happy ending? Suit over Barney parody is settled", Los Angeles Times, Nov. 29).

Not only is Prof. Bainbridge back blogging, now split into three avatars, but Beldar is back, too.

From The Onion, and it's only a parody. Right? (Nov. 28).

• Tennie Pierce takes his dog-food settlement to the LA City Council (Nov. 22). I repeat my offer to LA politicians: I'll eat dog food for a lot less than $2.7 million plus severance pay. [LA Times]
• Bogus $20 million asbestos verdict in NY; Chrysler had previously won 14 consecutive asbestos trials in a row; jury found Chrysler 10% liable, which made it responsible for 80% of the damages under New York law. Studies show no relationship between automotive products and asbestos illnesses. [Point of Law; Bloomberg; AP]
• "Madison County Gets $17.6 Million Windfall Despite Philip Morris' Escape From $10 Billion Judgment." Earlier: Jun. 20 and links therein. [Alton Telegraph via Products Liability Prof Blog]
• How tenant-friendly courts hurt tenants. [Point of Law]
• Murnane on Justice Bob Thomas libel verdict. [Illinois Justice Blog]
• One year ago on Overlawyered: $60.9 million cerebral palsy verdict. Arbitrary bench verdict arbitrarily reduced to $40.5 million; case on appeal to Eleventh Circuit. [West's Medical Malpractice Law Report]
• One year ago on Point of Law: Ray Harron, asbestos doctor and Connecticut decision against freedom of contract.
• The unpersuasive case for judicial activism. [Whelan @ Weekly Standard]
• Federalist Society Convention podcasts beginning to be posted. [Federalist Society]
• Are African-Americans "lagging" at major law firms, and if so, why? [Point of Law; New York Times; Lat; Sander]
• Nice PETA expose video. [Penn & Teller @ Google Video]

That's Stephanie Mencimer explaining (Nov. 28) why trial lawyers should buy multiple copies of her forthcoming book, entitled Blocking the Courthouse Door: How the Republican Party and Its Corporate Allies Are Taking Away Your Right to Sue, expressing views antipodal to our own.

Mencimer, a frequent contributor to such journals as Mother Jones and the Washington Monthly (see Jan. 19, 2005), has set up a website (previously noted by Ted) to promote her new book. It's not unproductive of chuckles, in its way. For example, in one post earlier this month (Nov. 10), criticizing media coverage of patent hellhole Marshall, Texas, she piously avers that reporters should disclose who fed them tips. A fascinating idea! Does this mean she'll be sure to disclose in her own writings who fed her tips? Or is this new standard only supposed to apply to journalism she disapproves of?

Reminiscent of the classic "Do you know who I am?", this pronouncement may not always succeed in its intended effect, especially when it comes as a preface to an exposition of why it is "illegal" for a flight attendant to refuse to serve you any more alcohol. (Alex Wade, "'I know my rights, I work for a lawyer'", Times Online (UK), Nov. 24).

Reversing a lower court, the Virginia Court of Appeals "ruled Tuesday that Virginia state courts had a constitutional obligation to defer to the rulings of Vermont courts in a child custody dispute involving two lesbian partners who had entered into a Vermont civil union." (Jurist, Nov. 28; opinion in PDF format). The ruling will come as no real surprise to those who've read previous posts in this space (Aug. 26, 2006; Dec. 16 and Aug. 15, 2004). Some social-conservative commentators had unwisely applauded the efforts of Liberty Counsel, a misnamed Religious Right litigation strike force, to help client Lisa Miller evade the jurisdiction of a Vermont court order ordering visitation rights to former partner Janet Jenkins.

New frontiers in disabled rights: "A federal judge has ruled that the U.S. Treasury Department is violating the law by failing to design and issue currency that is readily distinguishable to blind and visually impaired people. Judge James Robertson, in a ruling on a suit by the American Council of the Blind, ordered the Treasury to devise a method to tell bills apart." The court acted on the basis of the Rehabilitation Act, which guarantees to the disabled "meaningful access" to federal programs. (CNN Money, Nov. 28; decision in American Council of the Blind v. Paulson courtesy FindLaw; decision in PDF form at court website).

More: Here's an interesting development: the National Federation of the Blind, the best known organization for blind Americans, has issued a press release sharply critical of the lawsuit and the ruling ("dangerously misguided") (Yahoo/PRNewswire, Nov. 29). According to Dr. Marc Maurer, President of the National Federation of the Blind, "The blind need jobs and real opportunities to earn money, not feel-good gimmicks that misinform the public about our capabilities. Blind people transact business with paper money every day. ... [The ruling] argues that the blind cannot handle currency or documents in the workplace and that virtually everything must be modified for the use of the blind. An employer who believes that every piece of printed material in the workplace must be specially designed so that the blind can read it will have a strong incentive not to hire a blind person." More from the NFB press release:

Blind people traditionally identify paper currency by folding bills of different denominations in different ways. "In reality, blind people do not routinely find that we have been short-changed," Maurer commented. Machines are readily available to identify paper money for blind people who run businesses or handle large amounts of cash. "Essentially, the United States Treasury has been ordered by the courts to come up with a solution for a nonexistent problem," Maurer said.

Per the AP, "Government attorneys argued that forcing the Treasury Department to change the size or texture of the bills would make it harder to prevent counterfeiting," but Judge Robertson was not swayed ("Judge Says Currency Shortchanges the Blind", AP/Washington Post, Nov. 29). See also Dvorak Uncensored and Orin Kerr.

As a matter of federal tax policy, I oppose permitting deductions for state taxes. I would rather see lower federal rates across the board, and let the full impact of state taxes rest on the residents of the states that have high taxes, rather than have the entire nation subsidize a quarter or more of the tremendous tax rates paid by New Yorkers and Californians, thus reducing the pain of higher state taxes and allowing local politicians to escape the political consequences of profligate spending (not to mention preventing tax-cutting state politicians from realizing the full benefit of their policy).

But come April, I promise you that on my 1040 Schedule A, I'm going to deduct the thousands of dollars of state income tax I paid and collect the resulting refund. Does this make me a hypocrite? Of course not: it just means that I'm not an idiot.

I'm not arguing that people shouldn't take deductions that are available to them; I'm arguing that the deduction shouldn't exist. Self-flagellation on my taxes doesn't make me any purer or my policy arguments any more correct, it just means that I suffer all the costs of a tax policy I oppose without realizing any of the benefits.

Cyrus Dugger, however, makes precisely this mistake when he criticizes a reformer for being a plaintiff in a lawsuit as a "hypocrite." (Or, more accurately, thoughtlessly parrots the West Virginia Trial Lawyers Association's accusation of hypocrisy.) That one argues that the law should be changed for the good of society doesn't at all require that one refuse to take advantage of a bad law. There's no requirement that reformers who find themselves in the situation of being plaintiffs abstain from receiving legally available non-economic damages. Reformers aren't arguing that individuals are bad people for seeking non-economic damages, but, rather, the legal system's award of unlimited non-economic damages is bad public policy. (For that matter, it's far from clear that Stephen Roberts is even seeking non-economic damages above and beyond the cap he proposes—I have seen no one make that accusation.)

Similarly, Senator Trent Lott, an occasional reform supporter, sued his insurance company over Hurricane Katrina damage, seeking to rewrite the terms of the insurance contract that he agreed to, and using his power as a Senator to threaten the industry as a whole because State Farm refused to give him special treatment. However, the only thing Dugger can think to find wrong with Lott is "hypocrisy." It strikes me that hypocrisy is the least of Lott's sins compared to bringing an illegitimate lawsuit and abusing his authority as a Senator to punish the nation's economy in order to seek personal gain for himself and his trial-attorney brother-in-law.

Newsweek looks at North Carolina's cottage industry of tort actions by wronged spouses against the cads, hussies and assorted homebreakers who put an end to their domestic felicity (see May 22, 2005, Nov. 16, 2004, and May 18-21, 2000). "Although alienation of affection is rarely invoked in most states, a series of high-profile judgments in North Carolina, including one in 2001 for $2 million, have inspired more than 200 suits annually in recent years. Lawyers say people typically file these claims as leverage in divorce and custody disputes. 'A wife says I'm going to sue your girlfriend if you don't give me $50,000 more in property settlement. That's an improper use of the [law], and it shouldn't take place,' says A. Doyle Early Jr., former chair of the North Carolina Bar Association's family law section. ... Conservative [i.e., Religious Right] groups like the North Carolina Family Policy Council say the law should stay on the books". (Julie Scelfo, "Heartbreak's revenge", Dec. 4).

"Similar to its cousins the patent trolls, [Bridgeport Music Inc.] and companies like it hold portfolios of old rights (sometimes accumulated in dubious fashion) and use lawsuits to extort money from successful music artists for routine sampling, no matter how minimal or unnoticeable. ... Since 2001, Bridgeport's shotgun approach has led to many dismissals and settlements, but also two major victories. ... there's only one appellate court, the 6th Circuit, that takes the ridiculous position that any sample, no matter how minimal, needs a license." (Tim Wu (Columbia lawprof), Slate, Nov. 16). Frank Pasquale at Concurring Opinions has some further thoughts: Nov. 21. More on sampling litigation in Ted's "Overlawyered iMix" post, Aug. 9, 2005, and comments.

• In the Supreme Court November 29: Watters v. Wachovia. Also an AEI panel November 28, broadcast on C-SPAN1, 2pm to 4pm Eastern. [Point of Law; AEI; Zywicki @ Volokh]
• Also in the Supreme Court November 29: Massachusetts v. EPA global warming regulation case. Previously an AEI panel November 21. [Adler @ Volokh; AEI; C-SPAN (Real Media)]
• Legal cliche: If the facts are against you, pound the law; if the law is against you, pound the facts; if both are against you, pound the table. Table-pounding class of Gerry Spence protegee offers lessons in emotionally creating jury sympathy worth millions. [LATimes]
• What judicial activism?, Part 7356: Indiana state court judge holds "Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act" unconstitutional, complains gun industry supported the law. [Indianapolis Star via Bashman; Indiana Law Blog]
• Entertaining doctor victory in medmal case. [Musings of a Dinosaur via Kevin MD]
• Dahlia Lithwick gets something right; if only it was on an issue more important than a suit advertisement. [Slate]
• Leftover from Thanksgiving: lawyers acting like turkeys. [Ambrogi]
• Ninth Circuit grants potential standing to monkeys over Kozinski dissent. Earlier: Oct. 21, 2004. [Bashman roundup of links]
• Gloria Allred joins the Borat pile-on. [LATimes]
• Speaking of, here's the future case of Allred v. Kramer. More Allred: Oct. 16. [Evanier]
• Speaking of Allred nostalgia, and of primates, whatever happened to chimpanzee victim St. James Davis? (Mar. 17, 2005; Mar. 8, 2005) [Inside Edition; "The Original Musings"; CNN Pipeline ($)]
• More Allred nostalgia: is Veronica Mars' Francis Capra the next Hunter Tylo? Discuss. [Prettier than Napoleon]

Virginia Walker drove her Ford Taurus into the side of an 18-wheeler that had pulled in front of them on Highway 59, killing herself and severely injuring her front-seat passenger, Kelleigh Falcon. It's not clear which driver was at fault, but the resulting trial brought by Walker's relatives and Falcon focused on the deep pocket, Lufkin Industries, who dared to manufacture a truck trailer that complied with federal safety regulations. No matter: Lufkin should have anticipated that this particular truck would need sideguards that would protect the occupants of a Ford Taurus that hit it, though such sideguards would potentially make the truck geometrically mismatch and be more dangerous to still other vehicles on the road. (Press coverage does not indicate how fast the Taurus was travelling, and whether improved underride standards would actually have protected it.) Among the evidence introduced against Lufkin: they were a member of the Truck-Trailers Manufacturers Association, which, among other things, dared to speak with legislators about the financial impacts of proposed regulations; Lufkin waited until federal regulations specified underride protection standards before installing such protection, rather than taking its own initiative and discovering that the regulations asked for something else. A Texas state jury found them about 40% liable for $38.5 million in damages; press coverage doesn't indicate who the other 60% applies to. (Jessica Savage, "Lufkin Industries plans to appeal jury's decision in tractor-trailer accident case", Lufkin Daily News, Nov. 21; Ramonica Jones, "Lufkin Industries Plans to Appeal $36 Million Verdict", KTRE-TV, Nov. 22).

From a New York Times article on the city of Los Angeles's decision to curtail the planting of palm trees along public streets and parks, one reason being that the majestic plants have been known to drop bulky fronds on persons below:

“Hawaii has a lot of coconut tree liability problems because they fall on people’s heads,” he said. “But the people there have said, ‘That is something that we have to accept.’”

(Jennifer Steinhauer, "City Says Its Urban Jungle Has Little Room for Palms", Nov. 26). See also Jun. 11(similar, from Torquay, England). More on coconut liability, in both cases relating to the decorated Mardi Gras variety: Mar. 4, 2005 (thrown at parade spectators); Mar. 13-14, 2002 (copyright claim).

Virginia Postrel (channeling author Simon Winder) explains the policy background of Casino Royale (Nov. 21)

Contemplating a splitup? Grab the family hard drive and get it into your lawyer's hands ASAP. Such a stratagem "can be best explained to the client as an important first glimpse into the overall actions and conduct of the adverse party in the litigation". (Scott Andino, "Digging Deeply Into Matrimonial Data Mining", The Matrimonial Strategist/Law.com, Nov. 10).

Updating the Oct. 3 item from Australia: "Law firm Slater & Gordon was within its rights to pay a senior partner $1 million from the profits of a breast implant class action without informing clients, according to the Law Institute of Victoria. The bonus, which came to light this week, means senior partner Peter Gordon received at least eight times more from the class action than any one of the firm's 3100 clients. Their payouts ranged from a few hundred dollars up to $120,000. However, law institute head Michael Brett Young said yesterday there had been no need to inform the women about the payment to Mr Gordon because the settlement in the action had been authorised by a judge." (Chris Merritt and Tracy Ong, "Law firm 'in rights' on payout", The Australian, Sept. 16). For allegations that the $1 million was improperly paid to Mr. Slater although earmarked as "post-settlement expenses", see the Oct. 3 post.

Dr. Michael Hébert opens his mail to learn that the law firms of Lerach Coughlin and Levin Papantonio have been representing him in a class action for the past four years, in a shareholder suit against Cisco. One problem he notices is that the opt-out notice arrives in his mailbox two weeks after the expiration of the period allowed for opting out. And he finds other reasons as well not to be overly impressed by the generosity of Messrs. Lerach Coughlin and Levin Papantonio, even if they are willing to contribute their valuable legal services for a mere $15 million in fees plus expenses. (Doctor Hébert's Medical Gumbo, Nov. 16).

We're tardy in noticing this, but it's too colorful to omit: in the settlement of what we called the "no-blush, high-gloss, invisible-foundation antitrust class action" against cosmetics makers over pricing (see Jan. 14 and Mar. 14, 2005, and earlier links) the fee phase continued to generate showy highlights:

A bitter legal brawl over attorneys' fees has erupted in a national cosmetics pricing class action lawsuit, with feuding camps of plaintiffs' lawyers slinging allegations of flagrant billing abuses and extortion.

Among the alleged abuses were bills of $195 an hour for work by paralegals who were paid just $30, claims that attorneys and paralegals worked 24-hour or even 72-hour days, and charges of $90 an hour or more for cleaning desks and filing....

I was a guest just now on the radio O'Reilly Factor, guest-hosted by KABC's Doug McIntyre, to discuss the L.A. firefighter dog food hazing suit. A couple more background links on the story, to go with those collected by Ted above: Christine Pelisek, "Dog food caper", L.A. Weekly, Nov. 21 ("for nearly a week after the original story hit the papers — a tale of racist America making a black man eat dog food — the print media all but squelched the ensuing developments. The only hint of a brewing debacle was an almost invisible, 2-inch-long “brief” in the Los Angeles Times on November 15.") and Eric Berlin, Nov. 21 (discussing several stories on this site, and disputing the notion that dog food somehow historically evokes slavery) and Nov. 22.

• $15M to family of Oklahoma driver who flipped his car when taking a 30 mph curve at 67 mph and passing a car in a no-pass zone. [Point of Law]
• "Jungle Democracy's appeal is as unintelligible as its complaint and also states no grounds for relief." [Jungle Democracy v. USA (10th Cir.) (McConnell, J.) via Bashman]
• Reform coming to New York justice courts (POL Sep. 25). [NYT]
• Judge Boggs gets it right at Federalist Society conference: judicial independence is a means, not an end. [Above the Law]
• Speaking of the Federalist Society, Justice Alito gave an entertaining speech. [C-SPAN (Real Media)]
• "Among those swept up under [Georgia's] definition of sex offender are a ... mother of five who was convicted of being a party to a crime of statutory rape because, her indictment alleged, she did not do enough to stop her 15-year-old daughter's sexual activity." [WaPo via Tabarrok]
• Signs of a lack of remorse: "In a follow-up e-mail, [Wesley] Snipes directed me to a Web site that praised him for not paying income taxes under the theory that careful reading of the tax codes suggests that only foreign-based income is taxed." [Orlando Sentinel via TaxProf Blog via Lat; see also ancient Usenet post—I still haven't fully learned not to argue with idiots]
• Betcha you didn't know that using the n-word was morally equivalent to killing two people and seeking to profit from it, but if you cut Michael Richards more slack than OJ Simpson, LA Times columnist thinks it's because you're racist. [Kaplan @ LA Times]

Patrick Henry Stewart stole $1.8 million from his employer before being caught, but he won't be going to prison; U.S. District Court Judge James Moody Jr. bought his claim that the antidepressant Paxil caused his embezzling, and was sentenced Monday to 12 months of home confinement and five years' probation instead of the 41-51 months the U.S. Attorney recommended. Stewart had originally claimed that he began embezzling because he was angry over his employer's reneging on a promised six-digit bonus before changing his story successfully; his inability to control his actions didn't extend to lying about the scope of the fraud when caught. (Scott Barancik, "Ex-Jabil exec won't go to prison", St. Petersburg Times, Nov. 21 (via Obscure Store)).

We'd like to take credit, but: After talk-radio-flamed outrage over the City Council's approval of a $2.7 million settlement for "racial harassment" for a 6'5" African firefighter nicknamed "Big Dog" who was pranked with a meal of dog-food-spaghetti-sauce, the mayor vetoed the settlement. The "John and Ken Show" website posted photos of the plaintiff, Tennie Pierce, engaging in other pranks. Five council members backtracked after voters started sending cans of dog food to the politicians as a protest, which makes it unlikely the veto will be overridden, even though the settlement was approved 11-1. Hurt politically: the office of city attorney Rocky Delgadillo, whose office continues to defend the settlement. (Sandy Banks and Steve Hymon, "Fury on the airwaves undid bias settlement", LA Times, Nov. 22)

Lisa Kohler, the medical examiner of Summit County, Ohio, twice listed Taser stun-guns as a contributing factor in the deaths of area men who came out on the losing side in confrontations with police. So now the company that makes Tasers is suing her. (Phil Trexler, "Taser sues Summit medical examiner", Akron Beacon Journal, Nov. 18). MedPundit is dubious about the suit's merits (Nov. 18).

According to Kimberly Halpern's lawsuit, her family was visiting a Staten Island branch of the kid's pizza-and-games emporium when a terrifying cloud of flying insects emerged from a vent and repeatedly stung her son Austin, 4, sending him to an emergency room. Now he's developed a psychological fear of the whole Chuck E. Cheese entertainment package. A spokeswoman for the restaurant "said that no one else was stung that day, and an exterminator's visit showed 'no evidence of a swarm of killer gnats.'" (Janon Fisher, "Suit Bites Chuck E. 'Fleas'", New York Post, Nov. 19).

I'm not a big Nancy Grace fan, but this lawsuit by the parents of Melinda Duckett seeking to hold Grace liable for Duckett's decision to commit suicide is ludicrous. One hopes that Deratany is not unethically raising the hopes of his clients in bringing a lawsuit with no hopes of success for his own publicity-seeking benefit, under which circumstances mentioning the lawsuit here only furthers that problem. The parents' lawyer, Jay Paul Deratany, was previously in the news for threatening a parasitic lawsuit seeking $1 million from Knicks player Antonio Davis because Davis went into the stands to protect his wife from being attacked by an aggressive Chicago fan, even though Davis made no physical contact with anyone; the dispute settled within a week without actual litigation after bad publicity for Deratany's client (the son of a prominent political operative) caused the attorney to backtrack from the million-dollar damage claim. (A Jay Paul Deratany is also the author of the poorly-reviewed Chicago theater production "Two Grooms and a Mohel." Perhaps a coincidence.)

• Today at AEI: Panel (and webcast) on Massachusetts v. EPA Supreme Court argument on carbon dioxide regulation. [AEI]
• Paulson to Economic Club of New York: "Legal reform is crucial to the long-term competitiveness of our economy." [Paulson; WSJ; WaPo; NYT; American]
• One who reposts on Internet allegedly libelous news article immune from liability in California. One hopes this deters a certain attorney complaining about a six-year-old Overlawyered post recounting a 2000 LA Times article. [Point of Law; Volokh]
• It's an obvious point, but many judges simply refuse to acknowledge it in failure-to-warn litigation: overwarning can be counterproductive. [WaPo]
• Congress holds that Psalms 37:21 trumps Leviticus 27:30; Senator Obama objects. [WaPo]
• Russia: woman successfully sues Coca-Cola for causing gastrointestinal distress. [Kevin M.D.]
• More on breast implants. [Bernstein @ Volokh]
• More on the New Zealand no-fault med-mal system. [Point of Law]
• Posner on Friedman. [Posner]
• John Edwards seeks to cut in front of line to purchase Playstation 3 at Wal-Mart. Which of the Two Americas is that again? [Taylor @ Reason via Kirkendall]

"For the past 43 years the Weston family of Stoke-on-Trent have been in and out of court arguing over a legacy. They should have known better. What must be one of Britain’s longest running legal battles ended in the Court of Appeal yesterday with a judgment that means, in effect, that most of the £480,000 the clan were fighting over will disappear into the pockets of lawyers. ...If the Weston family business was now to celebrate by producing a sign, it would read: 'Don’t go to law unless you absolutely have to.' And it would be in red neon, as a warning." (Alan Hamilton, "Lawyers take the lot as family keeps £½m legacy feud going for 43 years", Times Online, Oct. 26).

Gina Cobb (Nov. 20) and many other bloggers are appropriately angry about the prominent New York Democrat's proposal to reintroduce draft conscription. I have one relatively small point to add, which is that no one who respects the English language should ever again refer to Congressman Rangel as "pro-labor". Someone who proposes to take away the individual's right to decide for himself or herself for whom to work, and at what calling, is an enemy of the rights of labor, not a friend. (Maybe "pro-union" still works, as a description.) More: Angry Bear.

Reacting to the recent case in which a jury awarded Illinois chief justice Robert Thomas $7 million against a suburban newspaper, the Kane County Chronicle (Jun. 22, Jul. 19, Nov. 3, Nov. 7, Nov. 14, Nov. 19). the New York Times recalls a 1983 case in which "a Supreme Court justice in Pennsylvania sued The Philadelphia Inquirer for defamation. The case was finally dismissed this summer — a full 23 years after it began. ... [Reporter Daniel R.] Biddle, who is now an editor at The Inquirer, said he had learned through lawyers that some of the biggest law firms in Philadelphia declined to represent the paper, in part 'because they were afraid' that fighting a Supreme Court justice might jeopardize their other clients." (Katharine Q. Seelye, "Clash of a Judge and a Small Paper Underlines the Tangled History of Defamation", New York Times, Nov. 20). More: Mar. 16, 2004. The Times piece also discusses a lawsuit's silencing of the Alton Telegraph, which once was an outspoken voice in Madison County, Illinois; Ted covered that episode on Point of Law Dec. 28, 2004.

I was just a guest on his popular radio show on KTSA 550 in San Antonio, discussing recent stories on this site.

"The government on Friday rescinded a 14-year ban on silicone gel implants for cosmetic breast enhancement, a decision praised by some for providing women with a better product but criticized by others who still question their safety. ... After rigorous review, the [Food and Drug Administration] can offer a 'reasonable assurance' that silicone implants are 'safe and effective,' said Donna-Bea Tillman, director of the FDA Office of Device Evaluation." (Ricardo Alonso-Zaldivar and Daniel Costello, Los Angeles Times, Nov. 18). Silicone breast implants, available to consumers in most other countries, were driven from the market after a campaign of speculation and misinformation by trial lawyers and allied "consumer" groups, particularly Dr. Sidney Wolfe's Public Citizen Health Research Group. The campaign resulted in billions in legal settlements over nonexistent autoimmune effects from the devices, none of which had to be repaid even after more careful scientific studies dispelled the early alarms. Chapter 4 of my book The Rule of Lawyers, which tells the story of the silicone litigation episode in detail, isn't online. The New York Sun has an editorial drawing some of the appropriate conclusions ("Now They Tell Us", Nov. 20)(& welcome Above the Law readers). More: Second Hand Conjecture channels Virginia Postrel (via InstaPundit).

Another way videogames are responsible for violence? "A furious Mayor Thomas M. Menino vowed yesterday to bill Sony Corp. for the chaos that swirled around the release of its PlayStation 3 machine after Boston police had to quell crowds grown frenzied and unruly by the hype surrounding the coveted consoles." (Marie Szaniszlo, "Lucky few got game: Crowds go after PS3s, mayor goes after Sony", Boston Herald, Nov. 18)(via Cutting Edge of Ecstasy, who comments).

This one threatened on behalf of villagers from Glod, Romania, (a stand-in for Kazakhstan in the movie) who say they weren't paid or given releases for their participation in the film, an assertion denied by the studio. The Los Angeles Times gives a largely sympathetic platform to their lawyer, Ed Fagan, without managing to mention the disciplinary trouble he found himself in (Nov. 26; Aug. 27, 2005 and links therein). Fagan shamelessly admits that he will simultaneously file suits in California, Florida, and Germany; international judge-shopping at its finest. (Bojan Pancevski, "Villagers to sue `Borat'", Los Angeles Times, Nov. 19).

An Indiana court in 1855 discerned a right to imbibe alcohol to be among the fundamental liberties of the citizen, and that wasn't the only court decision holding early liquor-prohibition laws to be unconstitutional. Eugene Volokh has details (Nov. 16).

• By popular demand: Alexis Brennan gives hot chocolate to daughter in carseat, little girl spills drink and burns herself after mom drives away, mom sues Starbucks; press mentions one hot coffee case where plaintiff won, and none of the dozen-plus where plaintiffs had claims thrown out. (This case is distinguishable from the McDonald's coffee case if the mother's claim that she specifically asked for a low-temperature drink holds up.) [Indianapolis Star; WRTV]
• Former placekicker and current Illinois Supreme Court Justice Robert Thomas wins $7 million libel judgment from newspaper that dared to criticize him. Newspaper unable to defend truth of its reporting, because its discovery requests were blocked by claims of "judicial privilege." [Lattman; Bashman]
• Copyright trolls inhibit hip-hop music. Is that a bug or a feature? [Tim Wu @ Slate]
• Judge to class action plaintiffs: tell me about your dealings with Milberg. [Point of Law]
• "Plaintiff draws $1.26M penalty. Judge sends developer message: 'Scorched-earth litigation' will cost you." [Knoxville News]
• Second Circuit: Illegal aliens may sue for wages at U.S. levels. [Madeira v. Affordable Housing Foundation; New York Sun; both via Bashman]
• UK Guy Fawkes crowd forced to resort to "virtual bonfire" because of liability fears over real one. [Evening Standard; apologies for losing the hat-tip]
• Burlington Northern & Santa Fe to artists: don't paint paintings of our trains or else. [CL&P Blog]
• Borat update: "One immediate handicap the two fraternity brothers bring to this legal battle is an inability to find a lawyer who knows how to spell 'aisle.'" [Slate]
• ATLA on the offense in the new Congress, but their fifth Congressional target, Heather Wilson, held on to her seat against AG Patricia Madrid (Sep. 13). [Point of Law; Albuquerque Tribune]
• Reliving deregulation debates. [Wallison @ AEI]
• Inconsistent Internet gambling ban violates existing treaty, may result in trade sanctions; Congress must now decide whether to annoy anti-gambling Puritans, American IP content providers, or horse-racing and lottery industry. [Slate]
• Roundup of links on new UK law on derivative suits. [Point of Law]
• World ends: minorities and women hardest hit, as applied to noneconomic damages. [Point of Law; Roth CPA]

Washington Post consumer-affairs columnist Annys Shin has misgivings about a class action settlement whose benefits to cellphone customers "read like prizes on a bad game show". ("Hidden Charges? Nothing Some Earbuds Can't Fix", Nov. 14). More on class actions here.

From Wales:

A spicy sausage known as the Welsh Dragon will have to be renamed after trading standards’ officers warned the manufacturers that they could face prosecution because it does not contain dragon.

The sausages will now have to be labelled Welsh Dragon Pork Sausages to avoid any confusion among customers.

Jon Carthew, 45, who makes the sausages, said yesterday that he had not received any complaints about the absence of real dragon meat.

(Simon de Bruxelles, "Sausages affected by draconian trade laws", Times Online, Nov. 18).

Per Jacob Sullum (Nov. 14),

Yesterday a federal judge in Louisiana rejected a motion to dismiss [the Competitive Enterprise Institute's] lawsuit challenging the Master Settlement Agreement that established a government-backed cigarette cartel for the benefit of state treasuries, trial lawyers, and the leading tobacco companies. The judge's order is here [PDF]. CEI's complaint and various other documents related to the case are here.

(see Aug. 4, 2005).

Also, Stanford economist Jeremy Bulow has published another in his series of always-excellent papers on the great tobacco robbery. As the Milken Institute's Oct. 20 press release puts it, Bulow argues that

the public was conned: the tobacco companies passed on more than 100 percent of the cost to smokers, many states were locked into terrible financial settlements and billions in fees were set aside for trial lawyers.

"Few people trust tobacco companies, trial lawyers or politicians," he writes. "But somehow when the three groups got together and spoke with one voice they were able to convince most people - particularly nonsmokers who benefit from higher cigarette tax revenue - that the settlement had achieved a noble public health goal. In reality, the settlement preserved tobacco companies' profits, while it gave the trial lawyers an incredibly large ongoing source of income gouged from the hides of smokers, and handed state politicians bragging rights as Davids to Big Tobacco's Goliath."

("The tobacco settlement: when trial lawyers meet tobacco execs", Milken Institute Review, December)(reg). For more from Bulow, see PoL, Nov. 18, 2005, and Jan. 20 and May 18, 2006.

The 1998 multistate tobacco settlements were a central theme of my 2003 book The Rule of Lawyers and have been covered in depth on this site, including Aug. 4, 2005 and links from there, Sept. 11, 2005, and Jan. 3, 2006, as well as at Point of Law: May 17, Jul. 20 and Jul. 26, 2004, Oct. 6 and Oct. 14, 2005 and Mar. 20, Mar. 29 and Apr. 12, 2006.

Glamor proved no substitute for legal merit as U.S. District Judge Thomas Whelan in San Diego dismissed two lawsuits by the highly publicized Brockovich against major hospital chains, alleging that the chains should refund to Medicare sums spent on treating injuries caused by earlier hospital negligence (see Jun. 22). The suits "made no specific claims of patient injury" but instead proffered studies estimating the nationwide incidence of negligent patient injury in hospitals. The judge termed the claims "speculative allegations" intended to allow Brockovich and the lawyers for whom she was fronting to "begin a fishing expedition". "The judge also noted that Brockovich, 46, was not eligible to receive Medicare benefits, was never treated at any of the Scripps or Sharp hospitals, and was never injured by hospital staff misconduct." (Keith Darcé, San Diego Union-Tribune, Nov. 16). For more on Brockovich's activities generally, follow links from Nov. 3, 2005.

Egyptian blogger Abdelkareem Nabil Soliman, a 22-year-old law student, has been arrested by authorities for remarks critical of Islam on his blog. Tom Palmer has details (Nov. 6) and there is a defense site: FreeKareem.org.

"We can thank him, in large part, for happy events from the elimination of the draft to the conquest of inflation," writes Brian Doherty. What a privilege to have lived in the same era as Milton Friedman (Reason "Hit and Run", Nov. 16). More: Alex Tabarrok, Tom Kirkendall (via Coyote), Arnold Schwarzenegger, Steve Chapman.

"Class members and class counsel Eugene Stearns are claiming that companies that process class action claims are illegally taking a large part of class members' winnings in the $1.1 billion Exxon-Mobil breach-of-contract case. Stearns argues the recovery companies are engaging in the unlicensed practice of law and duplicating work already done by his law firm. Florida federal Judge Alan S. Gold has voided members' contracts with one processing company and Stearns' firm is challenging other contracts." Stearns boasts (or is it complains?) that he is getting not "an additional dime" for his work protecting the gas station owners from the percentage-seeking middlemen, but he is probably not in too great need of dimes at the moment, his firm having been awarded an eye-popping $249 million in fees in the action itself. (Carl Jones, "Class Action Processors Accused of Illegally Pocketing Big Share of Awards in ExxonMobil Case", Miami Daily Business Review, Nov. 16).

Tourists from around the country descend on San Antonio to snap pictures of the famed Alamo, which looks pretty much as it must have looked in Texas's pre-statehood days, with one big exception: the curb in front of the historic battle site and running the length of the building has been painted a garish orange, as an accident-prevention measure. TV station KSAT has a video clip of the controversy, and one local man's efforts to get the decision reversed ("Bright Orange Curb Welcomes Visitors To the Alamo").

For purposes of suing you, at least. That's what happened to homeowner Glenn Brodeur, who hired his neighbor Ernesto Mendoza, an unlicensed roofing contractor, at a set fee to do the roofing work. "Mendoza arrived at Brodeur’s house with a gang of workmen, started on the project, and within a few hours fell off the roof and was seriously injured." In the current state of California law, unlicensed contractors -- but not licensed ones -- have the right to sue homeowners in tort in such situations. (B. Scott Douglass, Mondaq.com, Nov. 1).

Correspondent R.C. directs our attention to the curious claim of "harm" by the last-named plaintiff:

Animal rights activists have asked a state judge to stop foie gras production in New York, saying the ducks used are overfed to such an extent that they are diseased and unfit for sale under state law.

The lawsuit, if it succeeds, could spell the end of foie gras production in America, a goal animal rights groups have long sought. The two Sullivan county farms that are defendants in the suit are the only foie gras producers in the country, other than a Northern Californian foie gras farm that may shut down under a California state law banning the industry....

The first challenge the suit faces is to convince a judge that the animal-rights activists who filed the suit have suffered enough harm to allow them standing to sue. The plaintiffs in yesterday's suit offered several ways that they had been harmed by the foie gras industry.

One plaintiff, Caroline Lee, claims that the state's regulatory departments are misspending her tax dollars by inspecting birds raised for foie gras production without concluding they are diseased. Another plaintiff, an animal rescue organization, Farm Sanctuary, claims its employees have been "aesthetically and emotionally injured" by being exposed to the "suffering" of abandoned ducks that they rescue from foie gras production. Another plaintiff, a New York restaurateur, Joy Pierson, claims that her decision not to serve foie gras has caused her to lose customers at her two Manhattan restaurants, Candle 79 and Candle Café, according to the complaint.

(Joseph Goldstein, "In New Lawsuit, Activists Seek Ban On Production of Foie Gras in N.Y.", New York Sun, Nov. 16). More: Nov. 10, Nov. 2, Aug. 18, Jun. 8, Apr. 27, etc.

"Belmont is set to make history by becoming the first city in the nation to ban smoking on its streets and almost everywhere else. The Belmont City Council voted unanimously last night to pursue a strict law that will prohibit smoking anywhere in the city except for single-family detached residences. Smoking on the street, in a park and even in one’s car will become illegal and police would have the option of handing out tickets if they catch someone." (Dana Yates, "Belmont to be first U.S. city to ban all smoking", San Mateo County Daily Journal, Nov. 15). More: Jacob Sullum, Reason "Hit and Run", Nov. 16.

Kevin Underhill at Lowering the Bar, a law/humor blog, has amusing live coverage (Oct. 27) of the appeal in a California court of Christoff v. Nestle USA, the $15.6 million award for using a model's photo on a coffee label without ensuring that the proper permissions were in place (see Feb. 2, 2005).

His first: "news of the lawsuit was in the newspaper before anyone had had the decency to contact me. What kind of people act like that?" Not that everyone sympathizes: "Ho hum," says Greedy Trial Lawyer, who read the first two posts in Schwab's series. "Get out the violins." Don't miss this one, or the outpouring of reader comments (parts one, two, three)(cross-posted from Point of Law).

"A court ruling which ordered a gynecologist to pay child support for up to 18 years as compensation for botching a contraceptive implant was condemned by the German media as scandalous on Wednesday. The Karlsruhe-based federal appeals court ruled on Tuesday that the doctor must pay his former patient, now a mother of a three-year-old boy, 600 euros ($769) a month because she became pregnant after he implanted her with a contraceptive device." ("Doctor ordered to pay for unwanted baby", Reuters, Nov. 15; "GYN's "Human" Error Will Now Be Getting Child Support", Deutsche Welle, Nov. 15). Similar: Apr. 9 (Scotland), May 9 and Jun. 8, 2000, etc.

The sudden slamming of brakes on the housing boom seems to be coinciding with a rise in litigation against condominium developers, according to the Wall Street Journal. Most peculiar-sounding lawsuit mentioned: one against a Miami developer that has canceled an unbuilt 49-floor condo tower and, it says, has refunded prospective buyers' deposits with interest. It's still being sued by 58 buyers demanding the profits they expected to reap had the condos been built -- though the plunging South Florida real estate market makes such profits sound, um, speculative at best. Maybe they should thank the developer for canceling. (Troy McMullen, "Condo buyers take developers to court over promises", Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, Nov. 11).

Or credit unfairly denied for an accompaniment that was better than the song itself? Saying he was instrumental in the creation of the 1967 rock classic A Whiter Shade of Pale, former Procul Harum organist Matthew Fisher has sued in British courts for a share of royalties. His lawyer "said that the 38-year delay in making a formal legal claim was because Mr Fisher was unaware of his legal entitlement." (Lucy Bannerman, "They skipped the light fandango and are turning cartwheels in the courts", Times Online, Nov. 14).

Who writes to a federal agency encouraging it to adopt regulations imposing new burdens on the private sector? In at least one recent case, the public-spirited correspondent turned out to be a lawyer representing a short-seller who would profit if the enactment of new regulations caused a target company's stock price to fall:

In one instance, a lawyer representing an investor who had shorted Pre-Paid Legal’s stock filed documents with the agency urging the rules’ adoption. Without explaining his client’s motivation, the lawyer, Hal Neier, wrote that “Pre-Paid and companies like it provide concrete examples of the very sort of practices that the proposed rule was designed to eradicate.”

The New York Times has more (Charles Duhigg, "Why Short Sellers Want to Crash the Tupperware Party", Nov. 13).

• Plaintiffs' lawyers and Clinton appointee damage, almost kill the entire pension system. [Point of Law] Earlier: POL Aug. 8.
• Another view of the elections on liability reform. [National Law Journal]
• Second verse, same as the first: illegitimate Wal-Mart class action (Jul. 22, 2004 and links therein) being repeated against Costco, presumably other retailers to follow. [Point of Law; Wall Street Journal]
• “I can see why, if you’re sitting in a roomful of lawyers, you might come to that conclusion. But no one outside of that room would say: ‘Hey, that’s a good idea. Let’s sue Daniel Moore.’” U of Alabama sues locally famous artist and alum for using school colors in painting famous Alabama football moments. [NYT; Lattman]
• Roundup of links as Illinois Justice Bob Thomas's attempt to squelch public criticism goes to the jury. [Bashman]
• Silver v. Frank, Round III. [Point of Law]
• Ninth Circuit illegitimately overturns another death sentence; Supreme Court reverses for the second time. [Ayers v. Belmontes; SCOTUSblog; Daily Pundit; NY Times; WaPo]
• Chief Roberts on Nightline. [ABC News; Prawfsblawg via Bashman]
• Sam Peltzman interviewed on podcast. [Econtalk]

The Lou Dobbs faction in the Democratic Party seems to have grown, and the Bill Clinton faction to have shrunk, compared with six years ago, notes CoyoteBlog (Nov. 9). More: Jacob Weisberg, "The Lou Dobbs Democrats", Slate, Nov. 8)(via Postrel); "Australian PM: US Dems Hurt Trade Reform", AP/Houston Chronicle, Nov. 13.

Reader Greg Dwyer of Oregon sends the following:

Yours is the website I have been continuously reading the longest and the one I most identify with. So I figured I'd tell you something. I recently celebrated the birth of my first son, Michael Gabriel. And he will not go through life padded in Nerf. He is going to play dodge ball and tag.

I will let him eat trans fats and foie gras.

He can play Grand Theft Auto when he is old enough.

He will know that medicine is a risky business that doesn't always provide perfect cures.

He is going to be able to shoot a gun well by the time he is 21 and I will take him to get his gun license myself.

Most of all, I will teach him that life is what you make of it and if he fails at something, he will have no one to blame but himself.

Loving father and non-victicrat,

Greg Dwyer

Great Britain: "The Government was accused of 'caving in' over drugs yesterday following the disclosure that the Home Office is about to pay out tens of thousands of pounds to prisoners because they were forced to stop taking heroin or other opiates in jail. ....The inmates, who were dependent either on heroin or the heroin substitute methadone, claimed they suffered 'trespass' and clinical negligence by the Prison Service in being forced to endure 'short, sharp' detoxification programmes resulting in 'cold turkey' symptoms. They were said by their lawyers to be 'upset' by the short time they were allowed to stay on opiate drugs while on remand or following the start of sentences." And in case you were wondering: "The claimants' case is being funded by taxpayers through legal aid." (Neil Tweedie, Daily Telegraph, Nov. 13; Dominic Kennedy, "Payouts for prison drug addicts", Times Online, Nov. 13). More: James Slack & Matthew Hickley, "Outrage after drug-addicted convicts get £700,000 compensation", Daily Mail, Nov. 13.

Stephanie Mencimer says no, but I suspect wishful thinking. The only tv ad I saw in a close Senate race that raised the liability reform issue was Bob Corker's ad raising Harold Ford's multiple votes against malpractice reform—and Corker was the only Republican Senate candidate that won a close race.

ATLA sure doesn't seem to think that liability reform is a good issue for it: none of the television ads it bought mentioned the subject.

New Jersey's "solution": a $75/year tax on doctors and lawyers to subsidize malpractice insurance for the highest-risk professionals. Attorneys are unhappy, but the courts aren't intervening. ("Industry Insider: Jersey's top court won't hear lawyers group's $75 fee appeal", Star-Ledger, Nov. 10 (via Kevin MD)).

A sardonic congratulations to the Washington DC lawyers who won a $1.4 million federal jury verdict against the Kroger subsidiary "King Soopers", a Colorado grocery store that dared to give a 7-cents/gallon gasoline discount to customers who purchased $100 in groceries. Because of the "unfair trade" verdict, Colorado Safeway stores have announced that they will stop offering 10-cent/gallon discounts to customers who purchase $50 in groceries. Consumers everywhere will rest happy knowing that they have to pay more for gasoline and that lawyers profited from the experience. (Greg Griffin, "Safeway, too, caps customers' gas savings", Denver Post, Nov. 8). At least the Rocky Mountain News was sufficiently disgusted that it called for a repeal of the perverse 1937 law.

Teachers are being warned to watch what they write and say about students because of the risk of being sued for defamation. ...

The advice comes as anger has exploded in schools over new student reports which grade students on a scale of A to E for academic performance. ...

Teachers' Federation vice-president Angelo Gavrielatos said threats to sue meant Australia was "importing the worst of American culture".

"It reflects, regrettably, that we do live in an increasingly litigious society and that is sad," he said.

"All too often we hear threats of litigation . . . and what we are seeing imported into Australia and into our schools is that litigious environment or mindset that is so prevalent in the United States."

(Bruce McDougall, "Teachers warned off criticism", News.com.au, Nov. 6 (via Jacobs via Tongue Tied)).

The Metafilter folks aren't especially impressed with a mother's complaint that her son's rubbing "Magic Eraser" on himself caused a rash and that more warnings are needed on the package:

"Also, don't let your kids drink Round Up. Or put Tide in their eyes."

"It seems to me that if a product is known for scouring markings off of nearly any surface, some degree of it not being like Oil of Olay moisture rich foaming face wash should be assumed."

"I just checked my box of SOS steel wool soap pads and they don't have any warning either! Won't somebody think of the children?"

"The kid didn't rub his face with the eraser, Mom did. She cleaned his face with sandpaper that didn't look like sandpaper to her, and his face got all red, and she freaked out that he was "burned", because she still doesn't believe the erasers are sandpaper. Not a chemical burn. A friction burn. Caused by Mom."

"Things I have learned today on Metafilter: 1. Do not rub your kid's face with a cleaning pad that can take permanent marker off a hard surface with only a couple of mild scrubs."

To the mother's credit, she says she isn't interested in suing. (h/t Slim.)

• "[W]e can't develop good drugs ... if after the fact somebody comes in and makes a false claim of credit." Genentech beats Niro firm (Jul. 21) in billion-dollar patent case. [Legal Intelligencer]
• Excellent new blog on science evidence issues. [Science Evidence; Point of Law]
• Easterbrook: mandating software be free is not "price fixing" injurious to consumers. Duh. [Seventh Circuit via Bashman; see also Heidi Bond via Baude]
• Missouri high court upholds reform law barring some types of dramshop liability against equal protection challenge. [Snodgras v. Huck's; AP/Columbia Daily Tribune]
• Insurance company profits: the complete story. [Grace]
• I address Hyman & Silver's latest paper on medical malpractice. [Point of Law]
• Seattle cop spends $10,000 of taxpayer money on lap dances in unsuccessful officially-authorized quest for prostitution violations. [Seattle Times]
• Peter Lattman discovers Willie Gary's website. Overlawyered readers were there two years ago. Gary himself is being hoisted by a litigation and advertising petard. [WSJ Law Blog; Fulton County Daily Report]
• Andy Griffith sues Andy Griffith for use of Andy Griffith name. [AP/CNN]
• The $2.1 million deposition. [Above the Law; Kirkendall; New York Times]
• Scalia and Man at Yale. [Above the Law; Yale Daily News; Krishnamurthy via Bashman]
• Wallison: Deregulation works. [AEI]
• Must-read: An agenda for the Bush White House in the Democratic 110th Congress. [Frum @ WSJ @ AEI]
• Clegg: Learn from the Michigan Civil Rights Initiative. [NRO]
• Krauthammer points out that both parties have moved right this election. [WaPo]
• Will: "About $2.6 billion was spent on the 468 House and Senate races. (Scandalized? Don't be. Americans spend that much on chocolate every two months.)" [WaPo]
• At least we're not Iran: sex video has criminal consequences there. [Daily Mail]

Too much liberty of expression survives in that country for the government's liking:

New laws to clamp down on racism are being prepared by the Government after the leader of the far-right British National Party was cleared of stirring up racial hatred by attacking Islam.

Gordon Brown swiftly pledged to bring in tougher powers to raise the chance of convictions in similar cases, calling the BNP’s statements offensive.

His intervention came after an all-white jury decided that Nick Griffin, the BNP chairman, broke no law when he condemned Islam as “a wicked, vicious faith” at a secretly filmed meeting.

Plans for an offence of incitement to religious hatred were thrown out in a rare Commons defeat for the Government in February after a campaign led by the comedian Rowan Atkinson.

(Andrew Norfolk and Greg Hurst, "Race-hate laws to be changed after BNP case fails", Times Online, Nov. 11). More: Feb. 4, etc. Comment: Rod Liddle.

Not including defense attorney costs. Jorge Arvelo served spaghetti with a dog food sauce to Tennie Pierce at his firehouse as a prank, and alleged racial discrimination. The three firefighters behind the joke said it was just firehouse tomfoolery, but Pierce's attorney found a professor willing to say otherwise: "The association of a black man and dog food resonates with the deep historical roots of slavery and the corresponding dehumanization," said sociologist David Wellman, who further opined that "[Blacks] have a gyroscope that picks up hostile stuff that somebody else would not see as hostile." The City Council voted 11-1 to settle for $2.7 million; it's not their money, after all. Pierce also gets to take a year off on fully paid administrative leave, and then collect a full pension. The LA Fire Department is 47% minority. (Sandy Banks, "Black firefighter settles suit over racial prank", Los Angeles Times, Nov. 9).

Note to Los Angeles residents: I'll eat dog food and let firefighters laugh at me for doing so for a tenth that price.

Update, November 22: Mayor vetoes settlement in response to taxpayer outrage.

The Kittery, Me.-based Gentle Wind Project "has agreed to drop a defamation lawsuit against two former members who wrote articles comparing the self-styled spiritual healing group to a 'mind control cult.'" (see Aug. 30, 2004). Last year a federal court threw out the group's lawsuit against Jim Bergin and Judy Garvey, a married couple from Blue Hill, Me. (see Jan. 19, 2006), but the family of project director John Miller refiled the action in state court. Miller "claimed that he could communicate with the 'spirit world' [and] said he received designs for 'healing instruments' that resembled cards and hockey pucks, and could cure physical and emotional damage caused by illnesses ranging from alcoholism to paralysis." (Gregory D. Kesich, Portland Press-Herald, Nov. 10).

That's restaurant bad boy Anthony Bourdain (Kitchen Confidential), on Chicago's foie gras ban. Bourdain told interviewer Baylen Linnekin that if America does turn into a Singapore-style nanny state, "I can only hope we'll have food as good as they do." Asked about fast food: "People should be teased and humiliated for eating at McDonald's," he says. "I don't think we should legislate them out of business." ("Anthony Bourdain, Just Like Me: Is the Kitchen Confidential author-turned-television star a libertarian?", AFF DoubleThink, Oct. 29).

The client's battle contesting it has cost more than $300,000 so far. (Mary Alice Robbins, "The Seven-Year War: Former Clients to Continue Fighting Firm Over Legal Fees", Texas Lawyer, Sept. 19).

A classic, from TechDirt (Oct. 30):

It appears that Universal Studios recognize that the followers of the cult favorite TV show Firefly would be a great source of viral marketing for the movie based on the show, Serenity. They put together a huge viral marketing campaign.... However, as with so many of these things, it appears that the marketers at Universal forgot to tell the lawyers at Universal, who recently decided to send out cease and desist letters to a bunch of the guerilla marketers they had pushed to promote the film.

More: Tijir, Oct. 28.

Two of my least favorite things—misogynistic frat-boys and frivolous lawsuits—together at once. Three Chi Psi fraternity brothers from the University of South Carolina, after signing waivers and getting paid $200, got caught drunkenly wishing for slaves and making other obnoxious sexist and racist remarks on film to Sasha Baron Cohen in his character of Kazakh journalist Borat; those scenes appeared in the movie. They're now suing, wanting takebacks. TMZ has the Los Angeles Superior Court complaint, which asks for an injunction, punitive damages, and attorneys' fees. (I look forward to the discovery on the "false light" claims that suggest that the plaintiffs never would say such things as they were recorded being said.) Earlier, a friend of one of the frat boys asked Metafilter for advice. The complaint is filed by John Does, but Chi Psi David Corcoran has already bragged about the experience to FHM. Frat president Todd Bailey talks about the story to the local paper.

(Update: Upon further review, I see that the complaint alleges that the movie "falsely depicted them as insensitive to minorities." There is no allegation that the movie falsely depicted them as insensitive to women. In the trade, that's known as a negative pregnant.)

(Second update: Bashman with a roundup of links and Lat with sardonic commentary.)

"A handful of new schools charge up to $140,000 a year to educate an autistic child. Who can pay that much? Anyone with the right lawyer." (Alyssa Katz, New York, Oct. 30)(via Common Good).

Police officers Mark Landavazo and Henry Gabaldon say three rogue employees at the Burger King in Los Lunas, N.M., spitefully (or was it company policy?) put marijuana on their hamburgers, so they want the fast-food chain to pay them money for "personal injury, negligence, battery and violation of fair practices". ("N.M. Cops Sue Burger King Over Marijuana-Laced Hamburgers", AP/FoxNews.com, Nov. 7).

My new column, on Tuesday's vote, is up at the online Times (UK). "The result didn't hang on a chad this time, but lawyers still played a starring role". I make various comments about Eliot Spitzer and his brethren, the importance of winning by a vote "beyond the margin of litigation", and the return of John Dingell and Henry Waxman (Nov. 9).

From the Institute for Legal Reform:

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE – November 8, 2006

Contact: Larry Akey
202/463-5824 or 202/580-9313

Voters Want Congress to End Lawsuit Abuse, Poll Shows

Chamber: Overwhelming Bipartisan Support Makes Legal Reform a Key Issue

Swing Voters "More Favorable" if Legal Reform is Part of Democrat Agenda

WASHINGTON, DC – As the newly elected Congress looks to set its legislative agenda, one issue that enjoys broad bipartisan support from voters is legal reform, according to a poll released by the U.S. Chamber Institute for Legal Reform (ILR).

"Voters across the political spectrum expect their elected officials to curb frivolous lawsuits and abusive practices like fraudulent medical screenings and excessive discovery," said ILR President Lisa Rickard. "We will urge the newly elected Congress to respond to their concerns."

The survey shows that 85 percent of the people who voted in the mid-term election think frivolous lawsuits are a serious problem, and 86 percent say the next Congress should continue to reform the lawsuit system. Three-quarters of those who say they are strong Democrats regard frivolous lawsuits as a problem.

"In an increasingly polarized electorate, very few issues command this much bipartisan support," said pollster Bill McInturff, a partner at Public Opinion Strategies, the firm that conducted the election night survey of 800 people who voted on November 7. The margin of error for the survey is +/- 3.5 percent.

The voters who most helped shape the newly elected Congress say action on legal reform will affect the way they will vote in the future. Among swing voters – people who call themselves political independents and those who have only a weak affiliation to a political party – 63 percent say they will have a more favorable impression of Democrats in Congress if their agenda includes reforms to end lawsuit abuse.

The survey also shows that 81 percent of all respondents think there are too many lawsuits filed in America, raising the price of everyday goods and services, and 84 percent think the number of lawsuits clogs up the court system, making it harder for truly injured people to get justice.

Didn't work very well, it seems:

While there has been some progress in the fight against spam, it's mostly come from improving filter technology. In the meantime, however, CAN SPAM's continued uselessness is highlighted in this new report showing that the amount of spam that "complies" with CAN SPAM disclosure rules is at an all-time low of 0.27 percent.

(TechDirt, Nov. 1)(via Jim Harper, Cato-at-Liberty).

I seldom agree with Kevin Drum of Washington Monthly, but I don't think he's entirely off base here about one of the factors behind yesterday's Republican wipeout:

* Terri Schiavo and Katrina. This is sort of a gut feeling on my part, but I think it was the combination of these two things within a couple of months of each other that really hurt Republicans last year, not either one alone. The contrast was deadly: the Republican Party (and George Bush) showed that they were capable of generating a tremendous amount of action very quickly when the issue was something important to the most extreme elements of the Christian right, but were palpably bored and indifferent when the issue was the destruction of an American city. It's hard to think of any two successive issues painting a clearer and less flattering picture of just what's wrong with the Republican Party leadership these days.

• Post-election roundup from me and Walter. [Point of Law]
• Black helicopter crowd calls 90-10 Amendment E (Oct. 27) loss a fraudulent conspiracy. [Lattman]
• University of Michigan seeks to engage in frivolous litigation to strike down measure barring racial preferences. [Bernstein @ Volokh]
• Patron drinks, dances on bar, sues bar when she falls down. [Above the Law; Lattman; TortsProf]
• Can KFed use custody battle to renegotiate "ironclad" prenup? (NB that, unless prenup says otherwise, Britney Spears may be required to spring for Federline's attorneys.) [TMZ via Defamer]
• Speaking of which, here's a divorce case with a legal bill of $3M and counting. [Forbes]
• The litigious Michael Crook, unhappy that others are posting screen-caps of his mug. [Boing Boing]
• "Sometimes patients and their families DON'T want to hear good news." A tale of a Social Security disability seeker. [Rangel]

At the Point of Law election roundtable, I've got a periodically updated post giving results on some races of legal interest. P.S. And keep scrolling there for comments from Ted on results in California, Michigan, Connecticut...

• My informal debate with Professor Silver over the effect of reform on physician supply continues. [Point of Law; Silver]
• If you've been intrigued by Professor E. Volokh's idea of medical self-defense (and thus payment for organs) as a constitutional right, he'll be discussing it with Richard Epstein and Jeffrey Rosen at AEI. [Volokh; Harvard Law Review @ SSRN; AEI]
• Peter Wallison on how over-regulation and over-litigation is killing American competitiveness in the capital markets. [Wall Street Journal @ AEI]
• Press coverage is finally starting to break through in the Milberg Weiss scandal with a lengthy Fortune profile. [Point of Law]
• Economists and scholars file Supreme Court amicus brief calling for federal preemption of state "anti-predatory lending laws" in important Watters v. Wachovia case. [Zywicki @ Volokh; CEI]
• One-sided coverage by the New York Times on the issue of web accessibility for the blind. Earlier: Oct. 27; Feb. 8. [New York Times]
• Deep Pocket Files update: MADD tries to intervene in stadium vendor case where appellate court tossed $105 million verdict because of unfair trial. See Aug. 4 and links therein. [New Jersey Law Journal]
• Lawsuit: my dead father's baseball card mischaracterizes his nickname. [Lattman]
• Lawsuit: I have legal right to the letter W. [Times Record News via Bashman]
• Samuel Abady and Harvey Silverglate on libel tourism. [Boston Globe via Bashman]
• Another roundup of Justice Robert Thomas libel lawsuit stories. [Bashman]
• $15M Minnesota verdict blaming a delayed delivery for cerebral palsy, despite evidence it was caused by an unrelated infection. [Pioneer Press]

"The irony in Virginia is that conservatives fearful of an out-of-control judiciary are in fact inviting the judiciary to get involved in micro-managing family law." (David Boaz, "Marriage measure is an amendment too far", Examiner.com, Oct. 30). For more of the many, many reasons to vote no, see Sept. 20, 2006, May 31 and Nov. 2, 2004, etc., etc.

Update: David Frum gloats -- and quite prematurely, it would seem.

It wasn't just bad policy; it was also dumb politically (Amy Calistri, "Online Gambling Bill Co-sponsors Are Vulnerable for Re-election", PokerNews, Nov. 6; Radley Balko, "The Green Felt Revolution?", Reason "Hit and Run", Nov. 6).

Can prosecutors be made to pay a price at the ballot box for malfeasance? Durham, North Carolina, county district attorney Mike Nifong is up for re-election, and has run well in polls despite his hounding of three Duke lacrosse players -- perhaps the year's banner case of abusive prosecution (see Oct. 11, Oct. 12, Oct. 30, etc.). One challenger, County Commissioner Lewis Cheek, "has said he won't serve if elected, instead allowing Gov. Mike Easley to appoint a new prosecutor"; a third candidate, Steve Monks, has been waging a write-in campaign. (Ray Gronberg, "Durham DA race is hot", Durham Herald-Sun, Nov. 6; Ruth Sheehan, "Turning the tide in Durham", Raleigh News & Observer, Oct. 30). For some recent developments in the case, incidentally, see here, here and here (witnesses say accuser soon after incident performed dances inconsistent with alleged injuries), here (Nifong never interviewed accuser), and here ("Go ahead, put marks on me"). Update: and yet more doubt cast here (Nov. 11).

Former California Gov. Jerry Brown is overwhelmingly favored to become the state's next attorney general, but don't assume he'll necessarily follow in the footsteps of Bill Lockyer:

"I'm going to take a very practical, common-sense approach as attorney general," Brown said in a recent interview. "I'm someone who's acutely aware of the fact that we as a state have added 25,000 laws since I was governor. I think we ought to give people some space to live their lives." ...

And don't assume that he will agree completely with Lockyer's decisions. Asked about the global-warming lawsuit, Brown said he'd have to "take a good look at it."

"I think there's an issue of causation there," he said, adding that California needs to consider automakers' "imploding" financial situation. ...

"He was the first politician to turn litigation into a press release [as California Secretary of State, elected in 1970]," said Hiestand, the former Brown aide [Fred Hiestand, now prominent in California litigation-reform circles].

In post-Watergate 1974, the reform-minded Brown was swept into the governor's office. One year later, Brown and the Legislature were besieged with pleas from doctors facing skyrocketing malpractice insurance costs. Brown called a special session that would eventually lead to the Medical Injury Compensation Reform Act, or MICRA, California's law capping pain and suffering awards at $250,000.

Hiestand remembers philosophical discussions with Brown on the best ways to compensate malpractice victims. After graduating from Yale Law School in 1964, Brown clerked for state Supreme Court Justice Mathew Tobriner, a contemporary of tort expert and future chief justice Roger Traynor. Brown, Hiestand said, recalled Traynor's critical dissent in a 1962 case where a woman injured on a bus was awarded $134,000 for non-economic damages. Traynor said such awards were troubling because they are tied to subjective amounts of pain and suffering.

"At one point Jerry looks at me and says, 'Money is a false god. If you're in pain, you should turn to religion, sex or drugs,'" Hiestand said.

(Cheryl Miller, "Former Calif. Gov. Jerry Brown Runs for State Attorney General", The Recorder/Law.com, Oct. 16)(cross-posted from Point of Law's Featured Discussion on the election, which is still going great guns).

Jewelers in Kensington, West London, have been repeatedly victimized by a conwoman who poses as a wealthy shopper from Dubai and scoops up thousands in merchandise when novice clerks are distracted. The latest victim of the scam, jewelry designer Isabel Kurtenbach, says she asked police about posting a store-cam photo of the thief to warn other shops, and was told not to because it would be a violation of the perpetrator's human rights. (Evening Standard, Oct. 26; Daily Telegraph, Oct. 27)(via Zincavage). Subsequently, the Lord Chancellor said the police's advice had been "plainly wrong" and that storekeepers had every right to post such photos. (Guardian, Oct. 30).

Paternalism watch: Seattle has banned, in certain areas of the city, the sale of "29 brands of cheap booze favored by the homeless," including Thunderbird, Richard's Wild Irish Rose and Night Train Express. "But on the streets of downtown and Capitol Hill, people who acknowledged they were homeless and drunk seemed to find ways to make do." (Kery Murakami, "Alcoholics finding way around ban", Seattle Post-Intelligencer, Nov. 2)(via Balko, Reason "Hit and Run").

• Election day is tomorrow; the roundtable is still going on our sister website. [Point of Law]
• One reason the election is important: judicial nominations. Bill Clinton appointed 378 judges; Bush, in six years, 266, with 45 vacancies. [National Law Journal]
• Update: Illinois appellate court rejects Judge Maag's $110M libel suit. (Earlier: Dec. 23, 2004 and links therein.) [Bashman]
• Does Professor Charles Silver's single-variable time series on Texas doctor supply tell us anything about reform, as he claims? Did doctors push reform down the throats of an "anonymous and dispersed" group? I argue no. [Point of Law; Silver @ Bizarro-Overlawyered]
• Professor Paul Horwitz questions the convenience of the death-bed statements of the decedent in Williams v. Philip Morris. [PrawfsBlawg]
• More threatened Borat-related litigation (Nov. 29) from Mahir "I kiss you" Cagri and from Gypsies. The latter is resulting in film censorship in Germany. [Wired; Sydney Morning Herald]
• "We live in a very litigious society; it makes it more difficult for a physician to be a good Samaritan." [MetroWest Daily News via Kevin MD]
• Add Art Bell to the list of people threatening to sue bloggers. [Workbench]
• Twenty years of Scalia. [Weekly Standard]

We would never call him litigious or anything, but Morton A. Bender seems to have quite a reputation around Washington, D.C. and environs:

Bender, a 73-year-old native Washingtonian who made a fortune in the family construction business, is one of the most determined men in town, both admirers and detractors say. This is not a man who likes to negotiate. He enjoys a good fight.

The local and federal courts hold stacks of cases in which he is sometimes the defendant but more often the plaintiff. He says he can't keep track of all the people and institutions he's currently suing and doesn't know how many lawyers he's hired. "I saw the mayor at an event, and he said, 'How many cases do you have against the District?' and I said 'a few,' " Bender said....

"I stand up to be counted," Bender is fond of saying. "No one stands up for rights anymore."...

Early discussions between Bender and the neighbors about his plans went nowhere. He ended up suing one neighbor over a retaining wall that encroached 15 inches onto his new property. He won in D.C. Superior Court but not before the judge questioned why Bender brought the case.

"It seems to be the height of folly, laced with a bit of vindictiveness the source of which is unknown to the court, for plaintiff to insist that this attractive and necessary wall be removed simply so that it can be reconstructed about two feet further down the hill," Judge Geoffrey M. Alprin wrote.

(Lyndsey Layton, "In D.C., It's Big Names Vs. a Litigious Developer", Washington Post, Oct. 30).

Following up on our Oct. 26 report: "A judge [Oct. 31] lopped off nearly half of the $15.5 million verdict fired-editor Kimberly Osorio won from her ex-bosses at The Source, the bankrupt bible of the hip-hop industry." (Thomas Zambito, "Judge halves Source-suit payout", New York Daily News, Nov. 1)

I've got a review in today's New York Post of Andrew Sullivan's new book, The Conservative Soul: How We Lost It, How To Get It Back. A brief excerpt:

The "conservatism I grew up with," notes Sullivan, stood for "lower taxes, less government spending, freer trade, freer markets, individual liberty, personal responsibility and a strong anti-communist foreign policy." Defining figures such as Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher spoke regularly of human freedom as the great aim of political life. "It has long been a fundamental conviction of the Republican Party," declared the 1980 GOP platform, "that government should foster in our society a climate of maximum individual liberty and freedom of choice."

Somehow from there we arrived at the presidency of George W. Bush, whose pronouncement on the state's proper role - "When someone hurts, government has got to move" - owes more to LBJ than to Barry Goldwater.

Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum brusquely waves aside "this whole idea of personal autonomy," this "idea that people should be left alone, be able to do whatever they want to do." Ex-Democrats of the McGovern-Dukakis era once popularized the line "I didn't leave the party, the party left me"; if the Santorums prosper, plenty of old-line Republicans will be ready to sing the same refrain.

Some thoughts on the "safety"-driven (in fact, lawsuit-driven) repression of schoolyard play: "I feel very sorry for elementary school teachers if the kids don't run around the playground chasing one another. All that energy is going to come out one way or the other - better outside than in." (Dean P. Johnson, "Schools are banning tag. What's next: musical chairs?", Christian Science Monitor, Nov. 3).

Setbacks for key figures in a prominent disabled-access filing mill:

Two of the attorneys behind an onslaught of ADA lawsuits in California — including at least 20 involving Monterey County restaurants and wineries — have run into serious legal troubles of their own.

Thomas Frankovich, who represented plaintiff Jarek Molski in hundreds of handicapped-access lawsuits over the last five years, was suspended June 19 from practicing in the U.S. District Court in Los Angeles. The six-month suspension came after one judge on the court, Edward Rafeedie, declared Frankovich a “vexatious litigant” and said he would recommend Frankovich for disciplinary action because of his “abusive and predatory litigation practices.”

(Paul Miller, "Indictment, suspension for two ADA lawyers", Carmel Pine Cone, Jul. 21). Also in June, as was mentioned here in a post at the time (Jul. 5; see also Patterico, Jul. 1), Los Angeles attorney Stephen Yagman, who had represented Frankovich in defense of his ADA practice, was himself indicted on federal charges of tax evasion and bankruptcy fraud. In February 2005, after Judge Rafeedie had threatened Frankovich with sanctions, Yagman had said that "Judge Rafeedie’s mean-spiritedness, his cruelty, and his contempt for civil rights make Hitler look like a humanitarian.” (Paul Miller, "ADA lawyer's new strategy: Insult the judge", Feb. 11, 2005). More on Yagman: Jessica Seigel, "Cop griller", George, Mar. 1998; Patterico, Jun. 3, 2004.

More Carmel Pine Cone coverage of Frankovich and Molski here, here, here and here. Our coverage: Sept. 21 and Dec. 12, 2004, Jan. 8 and Mar. 18, 2005. And for a very different point of view, once again, here's Mary Johnson, "Jarek Molski's problem -- and I don't mean access", Ragged Edge, Oct. 24, 2005, arguing that Frankovich and Molski just aren't good enough at getting their story out.

• Don't forget Point of Law's featured roundtable discussion on the midterm elections. [Point of Law]
• Public Citizen's consumer law blog is holding a book club, and they've invited AEI's Michael Greve into the hostile territory to discuss his book on consumer-fraud class actions. Both the book and the discussion are must-reading. [CL&P; CL&P; CL&P]
• Lester Brickman and others talk about mass tort screening fraud on your iPod. [Federalist Society]
• November 8 in DC: the Kaiser Family Foundation is hosting a big panel on health courts. [Common Good]
• Roundup of links on the outrageous Illinois Chief Justice Robert Thomas libel suit. This really deserves a longer post by itself. [Bashman]
• Melvin Dummar is back in court with his implausible Howard Hughes lawsuit. [AP/MSNBC via ATL]
• Barney Frank also doesn't like the internet gambling ban. [Frank via Evanier]
• Today's outrageous Ninth Circuit decision: a 2-1 invalidation of a meth-addict's guilty plea for murder. Judge Bybee's dissent tears it apart. [Smith v. Baldwin; The Recorder; Above the Law]
• Clint Bolick of Institute for Justice, on the other hand, defends judicial activism in an interview with Russell Roberts. [Cafe Hayek]
• Have we mentioned the new website with all of Judge Richard Posner's opinions in one place? [Project Posner]

A heartwarming human-interest story, indeed: police Sgt. Ron Nametko of Denville, N.J. was hailed as a hero two years ago when he "talked a suicidal sheriff's officer into putting down his weapon and surrendering. Now the sergeant, who has since retired with a disability, is suing the man who pointed a loaded gun at him, citing emotional distress from the incident." Nametko's suit also names a neighbor, Doug Wilkins, accusing him of aiding and abetting Patrick O'Connor's actions. (AP/Newsday, Nov. 2; Bill Swayze and Margaret McHugh, "After saving man's life, ex-Denville cop decides to sue him", Newark Star-Ledger, Nov. 2).

...so prosecutors in Morris County, N.J. seized his family's three cars. "Neither of the parents were aware of their teenage son's prescription painkiller use, nor were any of the cars registered in his name. The family currently has no means to get to work or transportation. Gerald Trapp Sr. is a Bloomfield police officer." The youngster, Gerald Trapp Jr., 19, accepted a diversion program for first-time offenders in lieu of trial but did not admit any wrongdoing. (Peggy Wright, "Prosecutor wants to keep 11 seized cars", Oct 27; TheNewspaper.com, Oct. 28)(via Nobody's Business, Oct. 28).

Someone messed up big by failing to remove this amusing little bit of verbiage hidden away in a patent application (Eugene Volokh, Nov. 1).

Universal Tube & Rollform Equipment, an Ohio company, says its website utube.com gets more than 2 million erroneous clicks a month from persons who don't realize how to spell the name of the hit shared-video site. "The lawsuit asks that YouTube stop using the youtube.com domain name or reimburse Universal Tube for the cost of establishing a new corporate identity." (Elinor Mills, CNet, Nov. 1; Matthew Sussman, BlogCritics, Nov. 1).

Once Hog Butcher for the World and City of the Big Shoulders, Chicago has suddenly emerged as a hothouse of fussily paternalistic legislation aimed at such things as foie gras, trans fats and smoking in cars. "What did they put in the Chicago water supply?" (Miriam Gottfried, Forbes, Oct. 30).

Add the Stony Brook University Hospital cafeteria to the list of servers unsuccessfully sued over burns caused by hot coffee. If you recall, the theory of the McDonald's coffee case (and repeated by such trial lawyer defenders as congressional candidate Bruce Braley) was that McDonald's, and only McDonald's, served coffee so hot as to burn. For some reason, the reporter for the New York Law Journal tries to leave the reader with the impression that the original Stella Liebeck case was justifiable (though that opinion is irrelevant to the article itself) which shows how successful trial lawyer propaganda has been within the legal community and press. (John Caher, "N.Y. Judge Cool to Injury Claims Over Spilled Coffee", New York Law Journal, Nov. 2). We earlier listed other hot coffee lawsuit defendants.

Speaking of which, you may recall the Russian McDonald's coffee case litigation that we covered a year ago, with identical allegations from a woman who spilled coffee on herself; the press is reporting that the plaintiff has dropped her case. As in the Stella Liebeck case, the Russian McDonald's had a warning on the coffee cup that the contents were hot. ("Moscow McDonald's coffee-spill case closed", RIA Novosti, 1 Nov.).

You may imagine that you're buying a Canon EOS-1D camera, but all you're buying is actually a license to use it part of what you're buying is a license to use its software, and a fairly restrictive license at that. "If you let anyone outside your immediate family use the camera -- if you lend it to a friend for the weekend or even ask a stranger to take a picture of you and your wife -- Canon could technically sue you for breach of contract." (Clay Risen, "Shutter Bug", The New Republic, Oct. 31).

They've set up a group called the College Sports Council, and are rallying today in Washington, D.C. (Jessica Gavora, National Review "Phi Beta Cons", Nov. 1; Steve Nearman, "Title IX enforcement hits James Madison hard", Washington Times, Oct. 29)(more).

Paul Theodore Del Vacchio is the worst kind of gambling addict—the kind that isn't very good at gambling. He stole $500 thousand from his casino employer, and sought mercy from the court on the grounds that his addiction made him do it to cover gambling losses. (Well, he also bought a $20,000 pool for his 2700-square-foot home.) No dice:

"There are a lot of people addicted to gambling who don't steal anything. They get themselves in debt, sure. They may lose everything. They may lose their family. They may lose their house. They may lose their cars, but they don't steal….

"We can't let everybody who comes in here and wants to use an addiction, whether it be compulsive gambling, whether it be compulsive drinking, whether it be drug addiction, we can't as a society let them utilize that as a method of getting out of their wrong acts. You know, it's like my saying I'm addicted to beautiful women and fast cars, so I get to steal from the court's trust account….

"He's here because he's a thief. He's a thief. That's the bottom line. He's a thief. And he needs to acknowledge that, not use the gambling as a crutch. He let down his family. He let down his friends. He let down his employer. He let himself down. But the bottom line is he's a thief, and he needs to be punished for being a thief."

Following the cancellation of a Rolling Stones concert in Atlantic City, N.J., a would-be class-action lawsuit filed on behalf of a disappointed concertgoer (who is the wife of the attorney, Martin Druyan) demands $51 million for the cost of nonrefundable hotel tickets and the like. The baby-sitters were expensive, too. (Jose Martinez, "Brooklyn Stones fan seeks 51M of satisfaction", New York Daily News, Oct. 31)(via Lat).

"We have found that graduate students in general are cheating at an alarming rate and business-school students are cheating even more than others," concludes a study by the Academy of Management Learning and Education of 5,300 students in the U.S. and Canada. ...

However, what's holding many professors back from taking action on cheaters is the fear of litigation.

The National Community Reinvestment Coalition, a coalition of community activist groups, has charged free-home-valuation site Zillow.com with undervaluing homes in black and Hispanic neighborhoods. "It urged the F.T.C. to start an investigation and permanently restrain Zillow from providing home value estimates." (Damon Darlin, "A Home Valuation Web Site Is Accused of Discrimination", New York Times, Oct. 31).