A spokeswoman for the baseball team said there was “no proof” of the woman’s claim. “This is a wonderful country,” said [Alice] McGillion, “where anybody can sue for anything, even when the allegations are over 70 years old.” [NY Post] More: Unbeige (on possible evidence for claim).
Also on sports logo law: “Can I legally get myself tattooed with a pro sports team’s logo?” [Cecil Adams, The Straight Dope]
An Ontario no-sex-with-patients rule apparently bars dentists from fixing their own spouses’ teeth. [HealthZone.ca]
A Brooklyn woman intends to pursue further levels of judicial review after an appeals court denied her damages in a breast-feeding mix-up “because the error was discovered and fixed inside the hospital and her infant didn’t get sick or injured.” [Brooklyn Paper; another breastfeeding mixup case]
Ted Frank, who’s challenging the Cobell (Indian trust) class action fees as part of his work with the Center for Class Action Fairness, catches out a lawyer who claims to have worked for more than nine hours a day on the case for 14 years, including a 7-year stretch in which he purportedly worked “an average of eleven hours a day, every day seven days a week without a single day off.” [Above the Law, earlier]
I’m scheduled to join Jim Bohannon tonight on his radio show, 11 p.m. Eastern, to discuss my new book. It’s one of the best and most popular shows out there, so be sure to check local listings and tune in.
According to Todd Roberson at CJAC, a federal court’s ruling in a 14-year dispute over street curbs and sidewalks in Riverside, California has headed off a potential “avalanche of lawsuits.” U.S. District Judge R. Gary Klausner ruled the complainant in the case “had failed to demonstrate that Riverside as a whole is inaccessible to the disabled.”
Riverside’s City Attorney, Greg Priamos, was quoted in the Daily Journal saying the suit was “about money, not accessibility…The only hangup to a settlement earlier in the case was the amount of attorney’s fees. I’m offended by that.”
It’s not getting one-ten-thousandth the coverage of Mr. Tasini’s suit against the Huffington Post, perhaps because it’s not based on quite such an exotic set of legal theories. FindLaw pays staffers to write legal blogs and the suit charges that they were encouraged/allowed to work unpaid overtime. [ABA Journal] Eric B. Meyer has more (“Working through lunch may create overtime issues for employers”).
I’ve got a new post up at Cato at Liberty explaining why the American Electric Power v. Connecticut case — which was heard in oral argument yesterday before the Supreme Court — should be tossed for stating a fundamentally political rather than judicial claim.
More: Adam Chandler at SCOTUSBlog rounds up reporting on the “chilly reception” the case got yesterday before the high court and the “uphill battle” it may face in convincing the justices. As Andrew Grossman recounts, Peter Keisler had a very good day before the court representing the utilities, with Justices Kennedy and Breyer both signaling disapproval of plaintiff arguments, raising the likelihood of a lopsided or even unanimous defense victory. And Jonathan Adler recounts skeptical questioning from Kagan and Ginsburg as well. (& ShopFloor, Trevor Burrus @ Cato)