- “$600,000 award for not accommodating employee’s ‘Mark of the Beast’ beliefs“;
- “Teen steals machete and kills her Uber driver,” resulting lawsuit seeks damages from Walmart;
- “Maine tried to raise its minimum wage. Restaurant workers didn’t want it.”
- Delaware man spends $40,000 in legal battle with neighbors defending his right to build a garage;
- Court rejects Orange County, Calif. police union’s argument that smashing merchant’s surveillance cameras should give cops “reasonable expectation of privacy” thus ruling out admission of videotape of their misconduct in store afterward;
- “To: brandenforcements@… Mr. Forcements — may I call you Branden?”
- Hearsay? “Parrot said to have repeated ‘don’t (expletive) shoot’ in murder victim’s voice; wife convicted”;
- “Sangria served to kids by mistake and someone must pay” despite lack of any reported ill effects
.
One Comment
The “reasonable expectation of privacy” argument was probably technically correct–it would have been reasonable to expect privacy after smashing surveillance equipment–the problem is that the position runs into a rule that one cannot profit from one’s own wrong.