If you’re here in search of Ted’s post on the West Covina, Calif. chimpanzee attack, it’s here (given its popularity, maybe we should start up a regular chimp-attack beat). If you’re looking for the item about the Boston family that wants $740,000 for its electrocuted dog, it’s here. And if the story that attracted you was the one about the lawyer who accidentally sued himself, it’s here.
Author Archive
“GDR athletes sue over steroid damage”
“A big group of former East German athletes is to sue a pharmaceuticals giant over the damage they suffered under the country’s doping program of the 1970s and 80s.” The chief executive of the Jenapharm drug manufacturing group, Isabelle Roth, said the steroids in question were lawful and that the enterprise had no choice but to furnish them under the then-Communist regime: “As a part of a group of pharmaceutical companies, Jenapharm was obliged to collaborate in the State Plan 1425”. (BBC, Mar. 13). More: Tom Palmer comments. (& update Dec. 4).
Free speech prevails in “trash terrorists” case
In a case closely watched by free-speech advocates, a Missouri appeals court has dismissed as meritless a defamation suit brought by a trash company against a man who had successfully fought its plan to site a transfer station in his suburban St. Louis neighborhood. Leaflets opposing the facility had referred to the company, Fred Weber Inc., as “trash terrorists”, but the court found that “rhetorical hyperbole” of that sort, even if overheated, would not suggest to a reasonable audience that company officials engage in actual bombings or murders. Concern over the case has led to efforts in the Missouri legislature to broaden protections against being sued for taking part in public discussions. (Leisa Zigman, “County Resident Wins ‘SLAPP’ Suit Ruling Against Fred Weber, Inc.”, KSDK.com, Mar. 8; “Slapping down Weber” (editorial), St. Louis Post-Dispatch, Mar. 9; Tim Jones, “Lawsuit trashed as threat to speech”, Chicago Tribune, Mar. 9). More: opinion is here.
Update: Judge OKs cosmetics class action settlement
“A federal judge yesterday approved a massive giveaway of free makeup and perfume at cosmetics counters across the country as part of the settlement of an antitrust lawsuit against cosmetics makers and department stores…. She also awarded $24 million in attorney’s fees to plaintiffs’ lawyers involved in the case.” (Josh Gerstein, “Judge Approves Cosmetics Settlement”, New York Sun, Mar. 9). For earlier coverage of the controversial settlement, see Jul. 21, 2003, Apr. 14, May 19, and Dec. 3, 2004, and Jan. 14, 2005.
In N.M. for now, no “Right To Eat Enchiladas”
By enacting “cheeseburger bills” (see Mar. 13, Mar. 17 and Dec. 3, 2004) state legislators can attempt to make clear (in case courts had any doubt about the matter) that there is no cause of action against food purveyors for causing obesity in those who partake of their wares. Such bills have been making progress around the country, with 12 state legislatures enacting them in 2004 and others likely to follow this year. New Mexico, however, will not be among those states: both the Senate Judiciary Committee and the House Consumer and Public Affairs Committee have voted to shelve the idea on narrow party-line votes, with Democrats opposed to the legislation and Republicans in favor. “I don’t dispute the idea of personal responsibility, but I dispute the notion that any tort action is on its face frivolous,” said Rep. Gail Beam (D-Albuquerque), who chairs the House consumer committee. The bill had earlier passed the Senate Consumer and Public Affairs Committee. Its sponsors, Sen. Steve Komadina (R-Corrales) and Rep. Terry Marquardt (R-Alamogordo), had given it a locally adaptive title: the “Right To Eat Enchiladas Act”. (“Legislative roundup”, The New Mexican (Santa Fe), Feb. 23; Erin Madigan, “‘Cheeseburger’ bills fill state lawmakers’ plates”, Stateline.org, Feb. 15).
Reservists’ child support
More harsh consequences of our laws aimed at “deadbeat dads” (see Feb. 19 and links from there): Radley Balko, Matt Welch, John Hawkins. Some attempts at relief: California, Illinois.
Attorney accidentally sues himself
By reader acclaim, from the Illinois county that furnishes so much material for this site: “Alton attorney Emert Wyss thought he could make money in a Madison County class action lawsuit, but he accidentally sued himself instead.” Representing a client who’d bought and then refinanced a house, Wyss advised her that she might be entitled to file a lawsuit against the company that wrote the original mortgage over the $60 fee it charged for faxing two payoff statements, and soon signed her up for a class-action suit to be handled by himself and several other law firms, including the prominent Lakin firm. However, it developed that a company called Centerre Title, owned by Wyss himself, had been the party that collected the allegedly improper fees at closing, and when the mortgage-company defendant learned of this it moved to add both Centerre and Wyss as third-party defendants, much as Jerry, in the old cartoons, sometimes succeeds in bringing Tom’s tail around in circular fashion and presenting it for him to bite. The judge granted the motion, and rather than persist in a suit against himself Wyss resigned the client’s representation. The Madison County Record’s coverage includes deposition-transcript excerpts that serve as a reminder of how essentially passive clients often get steered into class actions in which the lawyers are the real parties in interest (Steve Corris, “Alton attorney accidentally sues himself”, Madison County Record, Mar. 8).
Sen. Stevens: let’s censor cable
“Short version of this column: If the Republicans wish to lose their majority, they can expend great amounts of energy to outlaw soft-core skin flicks on cable TV.” (James Lileks, “Don’t These People Have Better Things to Do?”, syndicated/Newhouse, Mar. 9).
Four law professors
…are out with a new study saying that medical malpractice payouts in Texas didn’t increase sharply between 1990 and 2002, hence no “crisis”, hence no case for damage limitations, etc., etc. (study; Reuters; N.Y.Times op-ed). Ted has some questions for the authors, though, at Point of Law. They seem like pretty good questions, too.
Other medico-legal topics covered recently at our sister website: the federal Health and Human Services department introduces an “early offers” pilot program; nurse-midwives call for reform; more criticism of New York Times coverage; and who gave the 66 cents?
Vietnamese Agent Orange case dismissed
In a 233-page ruling, federal judge Jack Weinstein has dismissed a lawsuit on behalf of Vietnamese plaintiffs demanding compensation over the use of the defoliant Agent Orange during the Vietnam War. (William Glaberson, “Agent Orange Case for Millions of Vietnamese Is Dismissed”, New York Times, Mar. 10). As Julian Ku puts it, “If the plaintiffs can’t convince Judge Weinstein, who can they convince?” The case is separate from one that has been allowed to proceed seeking compensation on behalf of U.S. veterans, despite a settlement brokered and approved by Judge Weinstein years ago which had been widely thought to have resolved that category of claim (see Jul. 4, 2003).