- “New Study: U.S. Legal System Is World’s Most Costly” [Daniel Fisher, Ted Frank on Chamber/NERA study]
- “Madoff lawyers collect $700 million in fees” [CNN Money]
- “How insurance substitutes for regulation” [Omri Ben-Shahar and Kyle Logue, Regulation, PDF]
- On the Founders’ concept of rights as embodied in Declaration of Independence [Ray Hartwell, American Spectator; and thanks for reference to my book Schools for Misrule]
- “A Glass Half Full Look at the Changes in the American Legal Market” [Benjamin Barton, SSRN]
- Oooh, a whole WordPress site devoted to ripe-for-rediscovery social scientist Edward Banfield [Kevin Kosar: Edward C. Banfield, An Online Resource]
- “Q. How does one go from editing an adult magazine to practicing law?” [Susannah Breslin interviews Dan Kapelovitz]
Archive for May, 2013
Waiver for attending Justin Bieber house party
If you Instagram, Tweet or otherwise disclose anything that goes on there, it’d better be good, because you could be on the hook for $5 million in liquidated damages. [TMZ]
A solution to the jobless-lawyer problem?
The immigration bill would give many deportees free attorneys [Slate]
Driverless cars: a privacy/surveillance threat?
Randal O’Toole doesn’t share the concerns of Greg Beato and others.
“Why Can’t We Get Rid of Bad Teachers?”
Los Angeles: “As LAUSD agrees to pay out 30 million dollars to the families victimized by the Miramonte Elementary School teacher molestation scandal, FOX 11 investigates why school districts seem to have such a difficult time firing teachers who’ve committed lewd acts.” Even the teacher charged with committing mass sex crimes in the Miramonte case managed to get a $40,000 payout from his district to quit. The powerful California Teachers Association (CTA) managed to scuttle a modest bill by Sen. Alex Padilla to streamline dismissals in extreme cases. Instead, it’s backing an alternative measure that reformer and former Sen. Gloria Romero describes as a joke that “wouldn’t really do anything.” [KTTV; CTA’s side]
“This is the most wonderful legal threat EVER”
Sent to Gawker by a lawyer who represents controversial Toronto mayor Rob Ford, it affords Ken at Popehat much delight: “First, nobody ever governed themselves accordingly based on a threat from a hotmail account.”
Contribute to small firm’s patent defense…
… get “I Beat Trolls” t-shirt. [Ditto.com]
In other news, “Vermont Declares War On Patent Trolls; Passes New Law And Sues Notorious Patent Troll” [Mike Masnick, TechDirt]
Supreme Court and constitutional law roundup
- Can a treaty increase the power of Congress? Cato files amicus in latest round of Bond v. U.S. [Nick Rosencranz, Ilya Shapiro/Trevor Burrus]
- SCOTUS denies certiorari, ending closely watched Kivalina climate change nuisance case [Jenner & Block, Foley Hoag, earlier]
- Jim Huffman on Arlington v. FCC, the Court’s new decision widening deference to agencies [Daily Caller, earlier] Mike Rappaport critique of Chevron deference doctrine in administrative law [Liberty and Law, more, yet more] Split among conservative justices on Arlington not free of cattiness [Tamara Tabo]
- Mixed-motive retaliation case University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center v. Nassar hasn’t gotten much press notice but will affect plenty of real-life litigation [ABA Journal]
- Town of Greece v. Galloway: “Roberts Court to Wade into Debate Over Religion’s Place in Public Square” [Jeremy Leaming, ACSBlog; SCOTUSBlog]
- Among key New Deal cases we’re allowed to object to Wickard and even Lochner but not Carolene or Erie. Why? [Michael Greve]
- Walden v. Fiore, DaimlerChrysler AG v. Bauman: “The Supreme Court Again Revisits (And May Rein In) Personal Jurisdiction” [Grant Esposito and Brian Matsui (Morrison & Foerster), JD Supra]
- “What’s the Most Important Supreme Court Case No One’s Ever Heard Of?” [symposium, The Atlantic]
Update: “EU drops olive oil jug ban after public outcry”
Even Brussels can get the message sometimes. The EU agriculture commissioner blamed public “misunderstanding.” [Telegraph via Alexander Cohen, Atlas Society; earlier] More: Kenneth Anderson.
N.Y. trial lawyers: bowling-shoe exemption must not stand
In the New York legislature, bowling alleys are hoping to win a law protecting them from slip-fall liability arising after their customers wear store-rented shoes outside the building and either slip there or track snow or other slippery matter back inside. Weather hazards have been tripping up more customers of the ordinarily indoor sport, it seems, since the state enforced a complete indoor smoking ban. The trial lawyer association is dead set against the bill; its president claims that the bill “undercuts the constitutional right to a trial by a jury” — presumably on the theory that it somehow undercuts trial by jury for a legislature to roll back any instance of liability for anyone anywhere. That’s sheer nonsense, of course — otherwise, it’d have been unconstitutional for legislatures around most of the country to have abolished the old heartbalm torts of breach of promise to marry and alienation of affection. [Albany Times-Union via Future of Capitalism] More: Lowering the Bar.