May 18 roundup

  • Historic preservation and habitat preservation laws can backfire in similar ways [Dubner, Freakonomics]
  • Serious points about wacky warnings [Bob Dorigo Jones, Detroit News]
  • Texas solons consider lengthening statute of limitations to save Yearning for Zion prosecutions [The Common Room]
  • A call for law bloggers to unite against content-swiping site [Scott Greenfield]
  • Drawbacks of CFC-free pulmonary inhalers leave asthma sufferers gasping [McArdle, Atlantic]
  • Try, try again: yet another academic proposal for charging gunmakers with costs of crime [Eggen/Culhane, SSRN, via Robinette/TortsProf] More/correction: not a new paper, just new to SSRN; see comments.
  • California businesses paid $17 million last year in bounty-hunting suits under Prop 65 [Cal Biz Lit]
  • Trial lawyer lobby AAJ puts out all-points bulletin to members: send us your horror stories so we can parade ’em in the media! [ShopFloor]


  • academic proposal for charging gunmakers: So I didn’t read all ninety some pages of the PDF. But the conclusion I think the authors were trying to make (but failed to state so explicitly) is: there is a whole lot of money to be made by suing firearm companies. Forget about round one. We’ve given it some more thought – because that what academians do – and we’ve come up with a new angle on things. We’re gonna find some charitable venues and get back with everyone…and then we’ll run a few test cases. If the levies begin to falter, we’ll send up the flag and you guys can call in the cavalry. We’re all gonna be rich!

  • I started reading the article then thought to look at the publish date. I’m not terribly worried by something that came out in 2002. These folks lost the PLCAA battle, I don’t see that ground getting rehashed any time soon.

  • Good catch on the date of the gun paper. Afraid it slipped right by me, even though I know quite well that “just published on SSRN” by no means equates to “just published”.