- YIMBY (Yes In My Back Yard) movement in San Francisco, other cities says build more housing to tame housing costs [Alex Tabarrok] Zoning laws sometimes respond to tiny-house movement, and sometimes don’t [Curbed]
- Federalist Society convention panel on Justice Scalia’s property rights jurisprudence with John Echeverria, James W. Ely, Jr., Roderick Hills, Jr., Adam Laxalt, Ilya Somin, Judge Allison Eid moderating;
- Your regulated residence: “Santa Monica Moves to Make All New Homes Net-Zero Energy” [Mental Floss]
- “King County, Washington, Caught Digging Through Residents’ Trash” [Christian Britschgi/Reason; see also on Seattle composting regulations]
- “EPA to big cities: Stop killing rats with dry ice” [Aamer Madhani, USA Today]
- “Policing for profit in private environmental enforcement” [Jonathan Wood; Clean Water Act citizen suits]
Archive for December, 2016
When legal action punishes speech
Panel discussion from the Federalist Society Lawyers’ Convention with Profs. Arthur Hellman and Patrick Parenteau, West Virginia Attorney General Patrick Morrisey, and Kim Strassel of the WSJ, moderated by Eighth Circuit judge Steven Colloton and introduced by John J. Park, Jr., on political and ideological investigations from the Wisconsin John Doe episode through various failed or overextended public-official corruption cases to AGs-vs.-climate-deniers. “It is noteworthy that the worst abuses have taken place in state courts. Should Congress allow removal to federal court when a defendant makes a plausible case that the relief sought would violate rights under the First Amendment?”
Worker: employer shouldn’t have let me drive off under influence
Sent to us by John Ross of the peerless Short Circuit: “Man takes unknown drug he ordered online, reports to work. He’s uncommunicative, ‘slow’ and told to call it a day. He drives home and gets into an accident. Did his employer have a duty to stop him from driving? Tennessee Court: No.” [Thompson v. Best Buy Stores, Nov. 28]
California: please reconsider Traynor’s parol evidence mistake
The traditional parol evidence rule reduces the scope of litigation by providing that unless a completed contract is uncertain or ambiguous, courts will not entertain extrinsic evidence, such as allegations of contrary oral representations, to alter its interpretation. In the 1968 case of Pacific Gas & Elec. Co. v. G. W. Thomas Drayage Co., the California Supreme Court and Justice Roger Traynor adopted a much more liberal alternative rule in which extrinsic evidence could be brought in to create ambiguity even when at variance with clear provisions. In a 1988 case, Judge Alex Kozinski, obliged to apply the doctrine in a diversity case, noted that the confusion created by PG&E and subsequent opinions “casts a long shadow of uncertainty over all transactions negotiated and executed under the law” of California.
In the case of Jibe Audio, LLC v. Beats Electronics, LLC, the Washington Legal Foundation is urging the California Supreme Court to hear the case and use it as an occasion to reconsider its approach to the subject: “California’s conception of the parol evidence rule creates uncertainty for people and businesses engaging in commercial transactions. Allowing this rule to persist will just allow the mass exodus of business from California … to continue,” said WLF’s Richard Samp. [case detail, press release, brief, background (James C. Martin and Benjamin Shatz)]
Trump and regulatory retaliation: a letter
Here’s a letter to the editor I sent to the Washington Post that they didn’t publish, responding to a piece by their business columnist Steven Pearlstein.
To the editor:
Steven Pearlstein (Dec. 2) writes with apparent approval of the prospect that President Trump will “make an example of a runaway company by sending in the tax auditors or the OSHA inspectors or cancelling a big government contract. It won’t matter that, two years later, these highly publicized retaliations are thrown out by a federal judge somewhere. Most companies …will find a way to conform to the new norm.”
I was reminded of Paul Farhi’s revealing story in the Post last March about Donald Trump’s prolonged, losing libel suit against reporter Timothy O’Brien. Per that report, Trump “said in an interview that he knew he couldn’t win the suit but brought it anyway to make a point. “I spent a couple of bucks on legal fees, and they spent a whole lot more. I did it to make his life miserable, which I’m happy about.”
The knowing use of a flimsy legal case to retaliate or intimidate, to inflict punishments or extract concessions a judge would never have ordered, is no more excusable when aimed at other sorts of businesses and professionals than when aimed at the press and reporters. In both cases it is wrong, it sets a bullying example to others, and it endangers the impartial rule of law.
— W.O.
(cross-posted from Cato at Liberty)
December 14 roundup
- Irony alert: Get-money-out-of-politics measure passes 53-47 in Howard County, Md. after backers outspend foes 10-1 [Len Lazarick, Maryland Reporter]
- “Hershey’s Scoffs At Class Action Over Amount Of Kisses In Bags” [Dee Thompson, Legal NewsLine/Forbes]
- Philippines bar responds after president Duterte menaces lawyers of drug suspects [Tetch Torres-Tupas/Inquirer, InterAksyon and letter]
- What should Trump do re: conflicts? Richard Painter and David Rifkin discuss [Federalist Society podcast; earlier]
- Massachusetts Attorney General Maura Healey, lately seen in this space using subpoena power to go after political adversaries who hadn’t taken a dime from ExxonMobil, also known for curious assault on gunmakers [David Meyer Lindenberg, Fault Lines]
- “N.Y. Top Court Rules Litigation Finance Transaction Violates Champerty Doctrine” [Kevin LaCroix, Alison Frankel on Justinian Capital SPC v. WestLB AG] “An epic legal battle with big implications for litigation funding” [The Economist on Liberian insurance claims against Cigna]
Last week’s debate: Article V convention to propose constitutional amendments
Last Wednesday I had the pleasure of appearing at the Intelligence Squared debate series before a New York audience on the topic: “Call a Convention to Amend the Constitution.” Under the series rules, whichever side advances its audience approval ahead more from the original baseline wins. Over the course of the debate, our negative side advanced our side by 21 points, compared with 10 for the affirmative of Prof. Larry Lessig and Mark Meckler. The IQ2 hosts congratulated us on a convincing victory (my ally was Prof. David Super). Probably the only time in my life a camera has caught me doing a high five!
The debate page includes a live transcript of the event, research papers and other resources. The IQ2 series also has selected several clips of highlights of the debate including this one on whether small and large states would have the same vote at a convention. The 2012 Mike Rappaport paper for Cato that I refer to in my closing remarks is here, and I’ve covered Article V convention proposals here and here (and more generally.)
On Monday of last week Prof. Larry Lessig and I joined Brian Lehrer’s much-listened-to WNYC radio talk show to discuss the issue. Listen here:
“Meet the Author — Frivolous Lawsuits, America’s Victim Culture”
It’s a cartoon — and not to be confused with an actual scene from one of my book signings [Dan Piraro]
Disabled rights roundup
- Wall Street Journal covers surge in web accessibility suits [Sara Randazzo, WSJ] State and local governments comment on federal proposals for public sector web accessibility;
- “Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Title III lawsuits are up 63 percent over 2015, according to law firm Seyfarth Shaw.” [Insurance Journal]
- “Drive-by” ADA suits in Austin, Tex.: “Lawyer sanctioned $175,000 for phony email, offensive comments” [Ryan Autullo, Austin American-Statesman] Arizona mass-filing attorney responds to professional conduct complaint [East Valley Tribune, earlier]
- “Airlines seek to limit types of therapy animals allowed on planes” [L.A. Times]
- “Fired for being (twice) intoxicated on the job, a mechanic for the D.C.-area transit authority undergoes treatment, applies for his job back. But his bosses refuse, allegedly because of his alcoholism. An ADA violation? Indeed, says the D.C. Circuit.” [Alexander v. WMATA as summarized on John Ross, Short Circuits]
- Department of Justice unveils ADA regulation requiring movie theaters to offer captioning and audio description [Federal Register]
“Court finally stops trying to make Detroit man pay child support for child that isn’t his”
We covered the case of Carnell Alexander in 2014 and 2015, and it may finally be over: “Alexander got official notice days ago, that after a 26-year-long fight he doesn’t owe child support for a child that is not his.” “You declare him a deadbeat. You garnish his wages, take away his ability to make a living,” said his lawyer, who now hopes to sue the state. [WXYZ]