New reports of a study linking an exceedingly rare cancer (anaplastic large cell lymphoma, 3 in 100 million women) to breast implants shouldn’t be seen as somehow vindicating the long-discredited litigation-driven scare campaign against the implants. [David Gorski; Robert Goldberg, DrugWonks; David Oliver]
Archive for January, 2011
Meet the Tiger Elders, with lawyers on speed-dial
“Under a proposal submitted last Monday by the Civil Affairs Ministry to China’s State Council, adult children would be required by law to regularly visit their elderly parents. If they do not, parents can sue them.” [“China Might Force Visits to Mom and Dad,” New York Times]
No more class pets?
Safety trumps other things dept.: in recent years “school districts have begun adopting policies that in many cases limit or even ban animals in the classroom unless they’re part of science projects.” Among reasons cited: “potential liability concerns.” [Everett, Wash. Herald via Free-Range Kids (“What is the least dangerous, cutest thing we can outlaw next?”]
“Fighting Suits Saves Money for Chicago”
Vowing no longer to be Mister Nice City (assuming it ever qualified as such), Chicago is now willing to pay $50,000 to fight (successfully) a police-misconduct case it could have settled for $10,000:
Even though the city stands to lose money litigating every case under $100,000, a spokeswoman for the law department said that recently compiled figures showed the strategy seemed to be saving taxpayer money by dissuading lawyers from suing the police unless they are confident of victory.
(& welcome Coyote readers).
Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission
Along with its formal report, the commission probing the financial crisis of 2008 has done an online archival dump of internal company documents that some hope, and others fear, will be of great help to litigators — even perhaps a “Wikileaks for the class action bar,” which with its allies was well represented on the commission and staff. [BLT; earlier]
More: David Frum has been doing a series of blog posts on the report’s substance.
Update: Kucinich settles olive-pit suit
The Ohio lawmaker gives his side of the story. Earlier here.
Taco Bell: “Thank you for suing us”
The restaurant chain responds with full-page newspaper ads to a headline-grabbing Beasley Allen lawsuit charging that its beef filling flunks federal standards for meat content. [ad via AP, Atlantic Wire, ABC, Atlanta Journal-Constitution] More: NPR (company has produced superhero cartoon spoof defending its product).
The trouble with tenure, cont’d
A Colorado cop gets reinstated with back pay after what his police chief considered an “egregious” incident of excessive force. And once again — I argue in my new post at Cato — we are given reason to rethink the strange phenomenon of public employee tenure.
P.S. Scott Greenfield has more on job security for errant police officers.
Update: California high court narrows Proposition 64
During the successful campaign for Proposition 64 in California, reformers cited as an example of the sort of the “shakedown lawsuit” they hoped to eliminate a suit in which Bill Lerach’s class action firm demanded money from lock maker Kwikset because its product was marked “Made in U.S.A.” but included screws made in Taiwan. Nonetheless, the California Supreme Court has now ruled 5-2 that the proposition does not ban such suits after all, because consumers can claim to be injured by the arguable mislabeling, even though nothing was defective about the lock. Dissenting Justice Ming Chin, joined by Carol Corrigan, pointed out that to get around the Proposition 64 limit all that consumers “now have to allege is that they would not have bought the mislabeled product,” and that this “cannot be what the electorate intended” in voting for the measure. [L.A. Times, CJAC, earlier here, here, etc.]
Relatedly or otherwise: Glenn Reynolds interviews University of Tennessee law professor Ben Barton about his new book The Lawyer-Judge Bias in the American Legal System (“Virtually all American judges are former lawyers. This book argues that these lawyer-judges instinctively favor the legal profession in their decisions and that this bias has far-reaching and deleterious effects on American law.”)
More courts ordering access to Facebook posts
One judge found it “unrealistic to expect that such disclosures [of personal and private information on Facebook] would be considered confidential.” But does a litigant’s use of smiley faces in online communication really contradict her claims to have suffered loss of enjoyment of life? [Reuters/MSNBC]