- “[P]rotect good doctors from junk lawsuits by passing medical liability reform.” This sounds much like what we heard four years ago in Overlawyered. [Bush SOTU]
- Update: Autopsies in Comair crash (Sep. 19) have lawyers salivating over noneconomic damages possibilities. Refreshing honesty: “It’s all about money.” [AP/Insurance Journal]
- Driver falls asleep at wheel, blames Ford for resulting accident; Indiana jury disagrees. [Bloomberg/NorthJersey.com] Florida juries have been more generous (Nov. 17, 2005; Nov. 21, 2005).
- Being a minor defendant in a mass tort [Mass Tort Lit Blog]
- Gary Condit’s lawyer asks to withdraw from his “frivolous” libel suit (and roundup of Condit’s legal actions). [Levine @ Patterico]
- More on Abigail Alliance v. FDA [Marginal Revolution]
- More on the new prohibition (Oct. 19 and links therein). [Kirkendall]
- A review of the OJ Simpson book. [Wolcott @ Vanity Fair]
- “This is Ronald Reagan’s party. Why is it proposing Jimmy Carter’s energy policy?” [Frum]
- Congressional Black Caucus: no whites allowed, even for a representative of a majority-minority district. [The Politico]
- Three years ago in Overlawyered: John Edwards’s bundle of secrets
- Seven years ago in Overlawyered: Mormon student actress sues over profanity in theater productions, settles in 2004 for over $250,000.
- I’m speaking at WLF tomorrow morning with Victor Schwartz and Sherman Joyce. [Point of Law]
Related posts
In Indiana; John Edwards; libel slander and defamation; roundups; Utah
I never understood the concept of parents suing when their children suffer harm. Where’s the damages? I guess it’s that old standy, “emotional distress”.
Also, why would the fact that some passengers suffocated trigger punitive damages? It appears that the quoted lawyer doesn’t know the difference between punitive and non-economic damages. Even I know that, and I didn’t go to law school.
[TF: I strongly suspect that this is the reporter's mistake.]
From the article on the Mormon student: “The University of Utah agreed yesterday to let students opt out of activities that conflict with their religious beliefs…”
But not other beliefs? As a state institution doesn’t this amount to establishement of religion and religious beliefs as having greater rights than non-religious beliefs?