- Lack of defect poses problem for plaintiff: Toyota prevails in first acceleration case [NLJ]
- Australia: writer Andrew Bolt on trial for alleged racially disparaging columns [Herald Sun, Crikey, The Age]
- “Attorneys Put Themselves Before Consumers in Class Action over Faulty Computer Chip” [CJAC, Frank/CCAF on NVidia case]
- Ruling by Federal Circuit is thinning out rush of patent marking cases [Qualters, NLJ, earlier]
- Podcast: Lester Brickman and “Lawyer Barons” [PoL, earlier here and here]
- “Are class actions unconstitutional?” [Lahav, Mass Tort Lit, on Martin Redish book]
- “Free speech belongs on campuses too” [Ilya Shapiro, Cato, on Widener case, with kind mention of Schools for Misrule]
- King Canute turns attention to dry land: states mull bills to forbid use of distressed properties as appraisal comps [Funnell]
Filed under: Australia, class action settlements, class actions, hate speech, Lester Brickman, patent marking, real estate, sudden acceleration, Toyota
5 Comments
“Attorneys Put Themselves Before Consumers in Class Action over Faulty Computer Chip” – How is that news? Isn’t that the point of a class action?
Jane wins the thread!
Thank you! I was local counsel for TLPJ in some class actions in Mississippi some years ago. TLPJ would intervene and try to make things a little better for the actual class members so I know of what I speak. Meanwhile, other attorneys were jumping in representing objectors so that they could get lucrative side deals. These cases are all about generating attorneys fees. It makes me sick just to think about it.
“Lack of defect poses problem for plaintiff: Toyota prevails in first acceleration case”
Wow. Who knew that non-defectiveness was still an available defense option for product liability.
“Who knew that non-defectiveness was still an available defense option for product liability.”
Depends on what state you live in.