- “Law Prof Threatens Suit over University’s Plan to Reinstitute Single-Sex Dorms” [ABA Journal, WSJ Law Blog; John Banzhaf vs. Catholic U. in Washington, D.C.]
- Mississippi: Dickie Scruggs files motion to vacate conviction in Scruggs II (DeLaughter case) [Freeland, YallPolitics] Before defending Paul Minor’s conduct in cash-for-judges scandal, review the evidence [Lange, YallPolitics and more]
- Woman who filmed cop from own yard charged with obstructing his administration of government [BoingBoing]
- East St. Louis, Ill. jury awards $95 million in sexual harassment, assault case against Aaron’s rental chain [ABA Journal]
- Connecticut unions demand investigation of conservative Yankee Institute think tank [Public Sector Inc.]
- “Court Upends $1.75M Award, Finding Plaintiff Lawyer’s Remarks Prejudicial” [NJLJ]
- Hold it! San Francisco debates bathroom rights for schoolkids [C.W. Nevius, SF Chronicle]
Author Archive
Canada: “Flooded-out farmer needs permit to remove fish”
“Bureaucrats have added insult to injury for a corn farmer south of Montreal whose fields have been damaged by near-record flooding. Martin Reid says he’s been forced to buy a fishing licence to remove carp that are swimming in a metre of water on his flooded-out fields.” [London, Ont., Free Press]
U.K. court rebukes “Edge” trademark-asserter
We’ve reported several times on the doings of a litigant who has asserted trademark rights over the use of the word “Edge” in videogames and related products and aggressively gone after many outfits whose names include that not-unusual word. Now another court, this time in Britain, has handed him a stinging rebuke. [Rob Beschizza, BoingBoing]
June 23 roundup
- Michigan sex abuse prosecution of dad falls apart; it was premised on ultra-controversial technique of “facilitated communication” with autistic daughter [Detroit Free Press; Ted Frank/Point of Law]
- Do demagogy and hardball work as trial techniques? [Steve McConnell vs. Ronald Miller and Max Kennerly]
- When lawyer-pundits consent to chase cameras [Scott Greenfield]
- Lawyer dad sues middle school girls over Facebook video [Houston Chronicle]
- So-called Precautionary Principle slipping into Restatement (Third) of Torts? [David Oliver]
- U.S Attorney in Maryland didn’t think Lauren Stevens case was strong enough to indict [Sue Reisinger/Corporate Counsel, White Collar Law Prof, Legal Ethics Forum, my Cato take]
- “The SLAPP-Happy Story of Rakofsky v. Internet” [Citizen Media Law, Atlantic Wire (“Meet the Lawyer Who Sued the Internet”), Popehat, earlier here and here]
NLRB’s “quickie election” unionization plan
Because its NLRB v. Boeing case just wasn’t controversial enough, the Obama National Labor Relations Board has decided to push — in double time — a new scheme for limiting the time management has for responding to a proposed vote on unionization.
Dear New York Times…
“…I Don’t Think ‘Moderate’ Means What You Think It Means” [David Lat, Above the Law]
Great moments in higher ed litigation
NPR “Marketplace” via James Taranto:
AMY SCOTT: The lawsuit began after Towson University started offering an MBA — a degree students could already get a short drive away at historically Black Morgan State University. Attorney Michael Jones represents the coalition suing the state. He says federal law prohibits states from starting new programs that are already established at a nearby Historically Black College or University, or HBCU.
MICHAEL JONES: Once these programs were duplicated elsewhere, it affected the abilities of the HBCUs to be competitive in terms of attracting students regardless of race.
“So You Got My Letter”
Patrick at Popehat has compiled “A Small Businessman’s Guide To Dealing With Obnoxious Letters From Lawyers.”
Welcome Philadelphia Inquirer readers
I’ve got an op-ed in today’s Philadelphia Inquirer on the Supreme Court’s Wal-Mart v. Dukes decision. The headline (“Reining in Frivolous Class-Action Lawsuits”) is theirs; I wouldn’t use the term “frivolous” to describe the case, which after all did convince the Ninth Circuit, if not any of the Supreme nine. An excerpt:
…The misconceptions about this case begin with the identities of the real combatants. On NPR’s Marketplace this week, Slate’s Dahlia Lithwick described the plaintiffs as “1.5 million female employees of Wal-Mart who are trying to file a class-action suit.” But, of course, most of those women are not “trying” to do anything of the sort.
Rather, a relative handful of them have hired lawyers, and those lawyers daringly sought to get themselves declared the legal representatives of the other 1.496 million (or however many), who have expressed no inclination whatsoever to sue. …
The message of this ruling is simple: Employees have to prove that they have been legally wronged, not just cash in because somebody else was.
More about Wal-Mart v. Dukes here, here, and here (& welcome readers from Ira Stoll/Future of Capitalism, Jonathan Adler/Volokh Conspiracy, State Bar of Michigan blog, Omaha World Herald (editorial), Real Clear Politics, and, on the headline issue, Elie Mystal/Above the Law).
June 22 roundup
- Supreme Court disbars Bill Lerach [Richard Samp, WLF] And check out the byline of the former class-action king’s recent contribution to The Nation; do you think it omits anything material? [h/t Bob Lenzner]
- Ted Frank guessed right on outcome of Wal-Mart case but still lost big betting on it [PoL]
- After feds seize online bettors’ money, Anne Arundel County, Maryland police department crows over windfall [CEI] And c’mon Maryland, surely we in the home state of H.L. Mencken and Frederick Douglass can do better in the liberty rankings than this;
- “Wrongful-Death Lawsuit Filed After Man Killed by Rooster” [Lowering the Bar]
- Hotel union behind California bill mandating fitted sheets [Daily Caller, earlier]
- Fifth Circuit upholds constitutionality of Texas law banning barratry (stirring up litigation) [Christian Southwick, Legal Ethics Forum]
- A Linda Greenhouse column I agree with? One of us must be slipping [vagueness in criminal statutes, see related Harvey Silverglate]