“For the first time in Canada, a court has ordered a man to give his ex-wife monthly support payments for their dog. Kenneth Duncan, a truck driver in Edmonton, was told to pay $200 a month in alimony towards the upkeep of Crunchy, a St. Bernard. …Had Crunchy been a child, the monthly payment would have been $691.” (“Albertan ordered to pay ex-wife $200 a month for pet support”, CBC News, Aug. 10). More on pets in divorce: Feb. 17, 2003; May 14-15, 2002.
Author Archive
Update: Derrick Thomas responsible for own crash
After less than a day of deliberations, jurors rejected a lawsuit claiming that General Motors was responsible for the death of former Kansas City Chiefs linebacker Derrick Thomas, who was speeding on ice without a seat belt at the time of his fatal crash four years ago (see Nov. 28, 2000). The ruling was a setback to attorney Michael Piuze (Jun. 19, 2001, Sept. 24, 2001, Oct. 4-6, 2002), who argued the case for the plaintiffs. (“GM Wins In Derrick Thomas Wrongful Death Trial”, KansasCityChannel.com, Aug. 17).
The family, as we noted in our earlier item on the case, had also sued local ambulance service Emergency Providers Inc. and Liberty Hospital, both of which tried to save Thomas after the accident. The ambulance company settled, as did a Chevrolet dealership. “There was no dispute that the Suburban’s roof was far stronger than federal standards, but the family contended that those standards were insufficient and needed to be changed. … Almost whispering to the jury, [Piuze] asked them for from $75 million to more than $100 million in damages, saying he did not want to put an upper limit on it.” We’ll bet he didn’t (Joe Lambe, San Jose Mercury News, Aug. 17).
Contingency fee discussion begins today at PointOfLaw.com
Two of the nation’s most prominent experts on the ethics of contingency fees, Prof. Lester Brickman of Cardozo School of Law and Prof. Richard Painter of the University of Illinois College of Law, are the guests in the second monthly “Featured Discussion” at Point Of Law, which gets started later today. Jim Copland sets the stage here and David Giacalone, whose site is another key resource for those interested in the ethics of fees, explains why you should care. Update: discussion has started.
Streaming content on the web? Pay up
Acacia Research Corporation, “an obscure but well-financed company in Newport Beach, Calif.,” has assembled a portfolio of broadly worded patents that it claims entitle it to licensing fees from many if not all entities that provide streaming audio and video over the Web. It has sent out demand letters to a wide variety of recipients including news organizations and colleges both large and small. “Johns Hopkins University received a letter last year from Acacia, which asked for what would amount to 2 percent of the university’s revenues.” In June it sued nine cable and satellite companies.
Critics say Acacia has no interest in manufacturing things, just in asserting legal claims. “Acacia appears to be the first publicly traded company whose sole business is the licensing of patents. ‘They are not a technology company; they are just a company full of lawyers,’ said Dan Rayburn, executive vice president of StreamingMedia.com, a Web site and industry association. ‘They acquire patents and then sue.'” Defenders, including some not employed by Acacia, say its patents appear solid and that it legitimately purchased enforcement rights from original inventors. “Last week, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Washington, the nation’s highest patent court, upheld a ruling that [television manufacturers Sony, Sharp and Toshiba] do not infringe the V-chip patent and thus owe Acacia no royalties. The companies that have already paid Acacia $26 million in V-chip royalties, however, will receive no refund.” (Teresa Riordan, “Internet Patent Claims Stir Concern”, New York Times, Aug. 16; Daniel Terdiman, “EFF Publishes Patent Hit List”, Wired News, Jun. 30). Update: Feb. 18, 2007 (Acacia has prospered through licensing deals, though it hasn’t yet faced its toughest courtroom challenges).
Edwards and jury selection
The Washington Times does some reporting on John Edwards’s trial practice in North Carolina. (“Edwards’ malpractice suits leave bitter taste”, Aug. 16). Reporter Charles Hurt talks to local doctors about Edwards’ cerebral palsy cases and also relates the following story about the role of jury selection in one of the future senator’s prominent cases:
“In 1991 [in Wake County], he won $2.2 million for the estate of a woman who hanged herself in a hospital after being removed from suicide watch. … During jury selection, Mr. Edwards asked potential jurors whether they could hold a doctor responsible for the suicide of their patients.
“I got a lot of speeches from potential jurors who said they did not understand how that doctor could be responsible,” Mr. Edwards recalled in an interview shortly after the trial. Those persons were excluded from the jury.
The article doesn’t say whether Mr. Edwards had to use up his peremptory challenges against the skeptical jurors or was able to get them purged for cause. Either way, it’s a reminder of one way the political process is both more open to diversity and more responsive to public opinion than the trial process: you can’t eject citizens from the voter pool just for holding the wrong sorts of views.
Latest newsletter
The latest installment of our free periodic newsletter went out this afternoon to its c. 2300 subscribers, covering the last couple of weeks’ worth of postings in telegraphic, even punchy style. It’s a great way to keep up with items you may have missed; when you’re through, pass on the email to a friend or three to let them know about the site. Sign up today, right here.
Imagine if it had been about the money
“[Attorney Allen] Lowy said that he was not fazed by the suggestion that [New Jersey Gov. James] McGreevey might resign. He said he and Mr. [Golan] Cipel were not seeking a financial settlement, ‘We weren’t concerned with the money,’ Mr. Lowy said.” (David Kocieniewski, “A Governor’s Downfall, in 20 Wrenching Days”, New York Times, Aug. 15). “Sources in McGreevey’s administration said Saturday that Cipel originally demanded $50 million [to not press a harassment complaint] but the figure dropped to $5 million as negotiations progressed.” (“Man in N.J. Gov. Case Says He Is Straight”, AP/ABCNews.com, Aug. 15). More: New Jersey Law Journal, Sept. 8.
Batch of reader letters
Four more entries from our correspondence stack on our letters page. Topics include: why autopsies don’t figure more prominently in malpractice cases, whether the legal climate deserves all the blame for the shrinkage in Philadelphia obstetrics, what happens when you tell your homeowners’ insurance company that you run a controversial website, and another lawsuit challenging the 1998 tobacco settlement.
When the judge is a curmudge, cont’d
Is there something about the name Sam that does it? U.S. District Judge Sam Kent in Texas has long been famed for his colorful excoriations of lawyers in his court whose practice does not come up to his standards (see May 14, Sept. 6, 2001 and links from there). Now, per Curmudgeonly Clerk (Aug. 11) who got it from Begging to Differ, Judge Sam Sparks, another federal district court judge in Texas, has just penned an opinion complaining that his duties in supervising the lawyers in a commercial dispute now resemble those of “a person who supervised kindergarten. … The Court simply wants to scream to these lawyers, ‘Get a life'”. (Klein-Becker v. Stanley, PDF)
Update: Virginia primitive, take 6
More developments regarding Virginia’s antigay law, much criticized in this space (see May 31 and links from there): the state’s Attorney General, Jerry Kilgore, has put forth an opinion (which of course does not bind the courts) construing the statute narrowly so as not to restrict persons of the same sex from entering private contractual arrangements that convey any “rights or privileges not exclusive to the institution of marriage”. (“The law”, Style Weekly (Richmond magazine), Jun. 30; Lisa Provence, “Not gay: Marriage affirmation sparks protests”, The Hook (Charlottesville), Jul. 17; Adrian Brune, “ACLU to challenge Va. union ban”, Washington Blade, Jul. 16). The law is already being cited by some attorneys as reasons why persons in Virginia should be considered free to disregard not merely civil unions, but even court orders arising out of such unions, originating in other states. Attorneys for Lisa Miller-Jenkins, who recently moved to Virginia from Vermont after the breakup of a civil union in the latter state, are citing the Virginia law to justify their client’s reported refusal to comply with a two-month-old Vermont court order awarding her former partner, Janet Miller-Jenkins, rights to visit the daughter born to Lisa during their time together. “State law forbids Virginia courts from handling legal custody and parental rights disputes if proceedings are already under way in another state.” (Calvin R. Trice, “It’s Virginia vs. Vermont in custody case”, Richmond Times-Dispatch, Aug. 14; Justin Bergman, “Judge delays ruling on jurisdiction in lesbian custody battle”, Newport News Daily Press, Aug. 13; Jonathan Finer, “Custody Case Puts Lesbian Civil Union On Trial”, Washington Post/National Constitution Center, Aug. 7)(via Tim Hulsey). And some gay residents of the Dominion have reacted to the law by deciding to move away. Update Aug. 25: Va. judge takes jurisdiction of custody case notwithstanding court order (Washington Post). More background on case: Washington Blade, Aug. 20. Further updates Dec. 16 (I challenge conservative commentator David Frum’s description of the case); Aug. 26, 2006 (Vermont Supreme Court rules against Miller); Nov. 29, 2006 (Virginia appeals panel, reversing lower court, rules against Miller).