September 11 roundup


  • I’m dying to know the grounds for Judge Pearson’s appeal. Why doesn’t the article tell us such an important piece of information?

  • As is often the case, the media seems to have no undrstanding of basic legal principles. The “pants” article says that the court has “decided to hear” the appeal, as though it had some other option. In most jurisdictions, a litigant has at least one appeal as of right from a final judgment. Unless the situation here is something other than a run of the mill appeal following ad adverse ruling, this whole article is pretty much pointless.

  • “Columbus cops’ class action: dept. shouldn’t have asked us what our ailments were when we took sick leave”
    This might make the police more sympathetic to peoples 4th amendment rights to be free from unwarranted search and seizure. [only on the web could I get through that with a straight face]

  • “”Mrs. Berghold should have been told not to drive,” Greenberg said. “And if she was advised, according to her, she would not have driven. And she wouldn’t have driven to Brockton Hospital, through the front doors, hitting my client and leaving a widow behind.””

    Because we all know that patients always follow doctors orders we can believe her when she says she would not have driven if only she had been advised….

    Just one more reason for me to not prescribe appropriate analgesics when indicated…