Comments on: November 4 roundup

By: Todd Rogers

Todd Rogers — Tue, 04 Nov 2008 22:20:43 +0000

Bill.
I noted your point as well, if only in thought. I still see a slog for this guy.

By: Commentor

Commentor — Tue, 04 Nov 2008 20:35:43 +0000

The deposition question post leaves out necessary information. If the woman has an emotional distress claim, then the questions, even if not very tactfully asked, are most certainly discoverable, i.e. alternative sources of mental anguish.

Having said that, their probative value might be outweighed by the potential for undue prejudice.

By: Bill Poser

Bill Poser — Tue, 04 Nov 2008 19:19:03 +0000

“But I’m inclined to believe that he’ll have a better chance of setting water on fire than he will at winning his case.”

Maybe, but it sounds like he is unusually well suited to win in that he has: (a) student evaluations that directly rebut the principal argument for dismissing him; (b) documents stating the school’s reasons for dismissing him that have already persuaded a judge that there is a good case that they dismissed him because they didn’t like his political views. It looks like he has the evidence that is often lacking in these cases.

By: Todd Rogers

Todd Rogers — Tue, 04 Nov 2008 19:06:58 +0000

Well, that one-in-a-million conservative pol-sci prof is certainly ambitious, and I applaud him. And from my experience, cases of this kind certainly have basis in fact. But I’m inclined to believe that he’ll have a better chance of setting water on fire than he will at winning his case.

By: Richard Nieporent

Richard Nieporent — Tue, 04 Nov 2008 16:34:35 +0000

Judge orders parties to settle dispute over noisy parrots after it reaches £45,700 in legal costs Clearly this case calls for a Monty Python solution.

By: Walter Olson

Walter Olson — Tue, 04 Nov 2008 16:07:03 +0000

Sorry, link fixed now.

By: John Burgess

John Burgess — Tue, 04 Nov 2008 16:01:12 +0000

The link to the piece on the First Amendment suit by the college professor seems to be wrong.

By: Rich

Rich — Tue, 04 Nov 2008 15:41:49 +0000

The article and linked decision about Desy (how not be admitted) is classic. One of his character witnesses was someone else the Mass. bar refused to admit. How could it have been better?