I expect to be doing a little upgrading to the site in coming days, so don’t be surprised if it becomes unavailable for short periods (or even longer periods, if something goes wrong).
Update late Saturday evening: looks like the upgrade to WordPress 2.7 has been successful, with only about half an hour of downtime. If you notice problems in the way the site runs, by all means let me know.
I don’t know how many times I’ve seen generic versions of this story, but this is the latest, filed by four Piqua, Ohio, workers who want a $41 million share of the $207 million lottery payout. “The four said they were out of the office and unavailable to contribute to the office pool for the Dec. 12 drawing” but allege an oral agreement that winnings would be shared whether workers happened to be around to contribute or not. (Nancy Bowman, “Piqua lottery winners sued by co-workers”. Dayton Daily News, Dec. 23).
Ohio: “The 88-year-old Blue Ash woman arrested after refusing to give a 13-year-old neighborhood boy his football back after it landed in her yard has sued the youth’s parents, alleging emotional distress. The lawsuit by attorney H. Louis Sirkin on behalf of Edna Jester contends that Paul and Kelly Tanis “and their minor children ‘regularly and without permission’ enter Jester’s yard to retrieve footballs and other play items that have been ‘carelessly tossed’ onto her property, the suit adds. …The Blue Ash city solicitor and city prosecutor later dropped the misdemeanor theft charge filed against Jester after she refused a police officer’s order to return the Tanis boy’s football.” (Barry M. Horstman, “Football keeper files lawsuit”, Cincinnati Enquirer, Jan. 3).
Lots of good reading at my other law site:
About two weeks ago SSFN posted an item on the threat to independent toymakers of a new law passed by Congress in response to the lead-paint-on-Chinese-toys panic. A day or two later the Washington Post covered the issue and the story has been spreading to other media. Maybe the next Congress, though not exactly business-friendly in many other ways, will act before any general wipeout of the economy’s handcrafted-toy sector.
Many thanks to SSFC for his reader-applauded (and marathon-length) stint guest blogging while I finished a deadline over the holidays. Be sure to check out his blogging at Social Services for Feral Children, where he’s written a nice post on his experience here. I have a feeling we’ll be seeing him back in this space before too long.
On a different note, today is the last day of voting in the ABA Journal’s annual best law blog contest, so it’s the last occasion for us to pester you on it. We’ve run up a very decent vote but two other sites put on a big effort to win the “Niche” category this year and we’ll probably lose to one of them (unless Michelle Malkin tells her readers to vote for us or something). Whether or not we win, a strong showing brings visibility to this site, so thanks again for voting. And I’m happy to learn that Overlawyered has now made it to the finalist list for the first time at a second and quite well-known blog award competition. That one hasn’t started yet, so I’ll wait on giving it a proper announcement until Monday when voting begins, but you can see a preview here.
There’s plenty that can be said in criticism of the NYT’s campaign-season piece insinuating that the lobbyist was personally too close to Republican candidate John McCain. But did it really do her reputation $27 million in damage? (Blodget, AlleyInsider). Update Feb. 19: parties settle.
Brutis the cat in Phoenix, Ariz. is safe now, but not until after a bit of hard feeling with the neighbor whose property he’d wandered on to:
[the Humane Society] suggested [owner] Michael leave food and water at the base of the tree, something Michael said he couldn’t do because his police officer neighbor would not let him back on the property.
Michael said the officer told him he was concerned that if someone got hurt while trying to get the cat on his property, he would be liable.
“He said no because of insurance,” explained Michael.
(ABC15.com).
“The unauthorized placement of a pinball machine in a Mel Gibson movie might have technically violated the copyright laws but it is not actionable, a federal judge has ruled.” In the 2000 movie “What Women Want”, a Silver Slugger pinball machine is fleetingly visible in one scene, never for more than a few seconds at a time. Judge Denny Chin sensibly ruled that the pinball maker had no right to sue Paramount for royalties given that the machine is a mere element of the background: “It never appears by itself or in a close-up. It is never mentioned and plays no role in the plot.” (Mark Hamblett, NYLJ). Earlier here, here, etc.
Social-host liability for party-givers in Canada. Quotes University of Alberta law professor Lewis Klar (Edmonton Journal, Dec. 31).