Comments on: December 15 roundup https://www.overlawyered.com/2006/12/december-15-roundup/ Chronicling the high cost of our legal system Sat, 16 Dec 2006 06:12:15 +0000 hourly 1 By: Jkoerner https://www.overlawyered.com/2006/12/december-15-roundup/comment-page-1/#comment-5066 Sat, 16 Dec 2006 06:12:15 +0000 http://overlawyered.com/wpblog/?p=4299#comment-5066 The complaint in the baking soda case says at one point “The Plaintiff has a right to be warned this is a clear and colorable violation of (Caveat Emptor).”

That sounds like something that would be written in the Onion.

]]> By: jb https://www.overlawyered.com/2006/12/december-15-roundup/comment-page-1/#comment-5065 Fri, 15 Dec 2006 23:15:08 +0000 http://overlawyered.com/wpblog/?p=4299#comment-5065 With regard to the sword one, it’s more complex than that: There was no official policy before the photo was submitted, and photos of other weapons have been allowed in school publications in the past.

]]> By: Chris Innes https://www.overlawyered.com/2006/12/december-15-roundup/comment-page-1/#comment-5064 Fri, 15 Dec 2006 22:18:34 +0000 http://overlawyered.com/wpblog/?p=4299#comment-5064 Regarding the suit against Arm & Hammer, check out one of the warnings they really do put on their packets of baking soda:

“Do not ingest food, liquid, or any antacid when stomach is overly full to avoid possible injury to the stomach.”

]]>