January 20 roundup

  • Med mal: does sorry work? [Point of Law]
  • Med mal: Nelu Radonescu v. Naum Ciomu. I think the damages were too low, since the act was intentional. But it’s in Romania. [Metro UK]
  • New San Francisco sick leave law helps workers at big chains (if only in the short term) and lawyers, hurts everyone else. [Point of Law]
  • Vioxx medical monitoring class action to proceed. [Point of Law; Drug and Device Law Blog]
  • And the next Vioxx trial in New Jersey, starting Monday. [Point of Law]
  • Adware displays porn on teacher’s computer, she faces 40 years. [roundup of links at Boing Boing]
  • Fraud in Ohio asbestos case plus slap on wrist for lawyer; no consequences for plaintiff. [Point of Law; Adler @ Volokh]
  • Always open mail from California. [Cal Biz Lit]

  • $100 million legal bill defending oneself against Spitzerism. [WSJ Law Blog]
  • “It would probably be better for the nation if more of the gifted went into the sciences and fewer into the law.” [Murray @ OpinionJournal]
  • Borat accepting Golden Globe: “And thank you to every American who has not sued me so far.” [Above the Law; Throwing Things]
  • OJ’s book contract. [Slate]

  • Contra Doonesbury, Bush administration not hiding age of Grand Canyon [The Daily Gut via Captain Spaulding; Adler @ Volokh]
  • Stephen Colbert “eviscerates” Dinesh D’Souza. [Comedy Central via Evanier]


  • About the Romanian case – ouch.

    I’ve often said that if we are going to have damage caps – which I oppose – the caps should not apply to cases in which the act was intentional. Any thoughts on that exemption?

  • $100 million legal bill defending oneself against Spitzerism

    The defendant says “It’s not about the money”(TM) and given that he’s spending 100-mil to not pay 90-mil, this may be the first documented case where that’s true.

    Regarding the teacher, a comment on Boing-Boing makes me wonder how much of her prosecution is due to the fact that the school district would lose federal money since they haven’t been maintaining their filters.

  • Justinian, no reasonable person would want caps on intentional bad acts. And we are all reasonable people.

    And the teacher article- so just exposing teenagers to sex is worth 40 years in prison? What reasonable person thinks that? What kind of stupid prudish society is this? What was the jury thinking? If there ever was a time for jury nullification, this was it.

    It really makes me mad that our society thinks that sex is dirty. Makes me wonder how we have survived as a species this long.

  • To pawt,

    My understanding is that a jury is to decide fatual questions without reference to possible punishment. Sometimes juries will compromise on what seems to them to be a minor count only to be horrified by the punishment attendtent thereto.

    The possible 40-year punishment gives excessive power to prosecutors – note the conduct of Mr. Starr who willy-nilly destroyed people by theatening to expose people to such a possibility. Mr. McDougle pleaded giuity to a charge tp avoid the possibilit of getting the equivilent of a life sentence. The bible toating Mr. Starr then let Mr. McDougal die on a concreat floor for lack of medicine.

    The fantastic verdicts during the pre-school hysterical prosecutions shows no limit to jury stupidy when it comes to sex.

    Limits should appy whether actions are deliberate or not. The rule of proportionality is an essential component of the rule of law.

  • “Always open mail from California.”

    I found that a whil back (whn you linkd to that blog for another reason), and it bears repearing: ALWAYS ALWAYS ALWAYS open mail from Commiefornia!

    Regarding th teacher: sh shouldn’t have been found guilty in the first place (the expert witness for the prosecution lied through his teeth, as any any semi-competent web-user would know, much less an “expert”).

    Her computer was hit by malware – since a sub no doubt has administrater authority on every machine in the district [rolleyes], she should have been able to do somthing about that.