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.)
Archive for November, 2006
November 21 roundup
- 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]
UK: 43-year legacy battle empties estate
“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).
“Charles Rangel Thinks He Owns You”
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.
When a judge sues for defamation, cont’d
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.
Welcome Brad Messer listeners
I was just a guest on his popular radio show on KTSA 550 in San Antonio, discussing recent stories on this site.
“FDA ends ban on silicone breast implants”
“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).
Boston mayor: Sony should pay for PlayStation 3 riots
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).
Yet another Borat suit
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).
A constitutional right to drink?
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).