- Big win for Ted Frank’s objector project in Walgreens case: “Posner opinion blasts class actions that are ‘no better than a racket'” [ABA Journal, Kevin LaCroix/D and O Diary, Cook County Record]
- “It’s a bonus if they went [to the hospital] in an ambulance”: litigation funding moves into mainstream [Sara Randazzo, WSJ]
- Class actions and lawyer collusion: why the Supreme Court should review Schulman v. LexisNexis [Ilya Shapiro and Jayme Weber, Cato]
- “Should Judges Allow Juries To Hear A Windfall May Be Bad For A Plaintiff?” [Kyle White, Abnormal Use]
- California Supreme Court OKs basing class action fees on settlement size rather than hours worked [Alison Frankel, Reuters; earlier on Laffitte v. Robert Half International]
- “Contra Plaintiffs’ Bar, Registering to Do Business Does Not Create General Jurisdiction” [Mark Moller, Washington Legal Foundation]
One Comment
“Should Judges Allow Juries To Hear A Windfall May Be Bad For A Plaintiff?”
If I were a juror and you hit me with the argument “don’t give the plaintiff a big damages award because they might waste it all, fight with their family, and drink a lot,” I’m pretty sure you’d anger me enough that I’d want to add another zero or two on to the amount on the verdict forum, assuming the facts were such that I wanted to give the plaintiff anything.