In Los Angeles, a woman “who wants to remain anonymous” has sued Match.com saying that a man she met on the service raped her on their second date and that it has a legal responsibility to screen participants more carefully. The man in the case, who is awaiting trial, has implied through a lawyer that contact was consensual. [NBC Los Angeles via TortsProf, Amy Alkon]
Author Archive
Ban on smoking by renters
The Bay Area town of Larkspur plans to forbid most apartment and condominium tenants from smoking in their own units. [Marin Independent Journal; related]
Wal-Mart v. Dukes symposium at Point of Law
The distinguished panel includes Lester Brickman and Myriam Gilles (Cardozo), Richard Epstein (NYU), Jim Copland and Ted Frank (Manhattan Institute), R. Matthew Cairns (Gallagher, Callahan & Gartrell and the 2011 president of the Defense Research Institute), Russell Jackson (Skadden), and Andrew Trask (McGuire Woods). You can follow the discussion here.
Great moments in school-speech litigation
Ohio: “A family with an extensive history of legal action against a number of school districts and municipalities has filed a $1 million civil lawsuit against Middletown City Schools. Orlando Bethel — who refers to himself as a fire and brimstone preacher in court documents, and his wife, Glynis — filed the action Friday in Cincinnati federal court after one of their three children, Zoe, wore a T-shirt at the high school proclaiming ‘god hates (expletive)’ and ‘repent or burn in hell.'” [Dayton Daily News]
U.K. auto insurance rates soar
A House of Commons select committee “identified the principal cause as ‘a rapid growth in the number of personal injury claims management firms, which are using direct cold-call marketing techniques to encourage people to make claims who otherwise would not have done so'”. [Philip Johnston, Telegraph]
April 14 roundup
- “Raging Bitch”: Frederick (Md.) brewery says its beer label is a First Amendment issue [Frederick News-Post]
- UK soccer: Sunderland fan sues club after being hit by stray Djibril Cissé shot [Guardian]
- DirectBuy: “When 36 AGs Object to Your Class Action Settlement, That’s Not a Good Sign” [Karlsgodt] “Court reduces fees after CCAF objection to HP settlement” [Ted Frank] Russell Jackson on ink-cartridge settlements;
- Time for Congress to repeal the Uniform Federal Drinking Age Act [Glenn Reynolds/WSJ via WSJ Law Blog]
- Claim: business investment isn’t really much impaired by regulatory uncertainty [Lardner]
- Update: “Righthaven drops suit against mildly autistic hobby blogger” [Romenesko, earlier] And it sues, then drops suit against, writer based on his article about one of its suits [ArsTechnica, PaidContent]
- George Wallace hosts Blawg Review #304 at Declarations and Exceptions and #305 at A Fool in the Forest;
- Suspicious website promotes nonexistent law firm [Brian Baxter, AmLaw Daily]
Class action demands pay for Huffington Post bloggers
The site generally promised to pay nothing to its bloggers, and has lived up to that promise. [Romenesko/Washington Post, Radley Balko, Atlantic Wire, Coyote (FLSA is a more unreasonable law than you may assume), Max Kennerly (“unjust enrichment” theories not going anywhere), Volokh (next: suits on behalf of unpaid commenters), Lawrence Cunningham (“close to zero” chance of suit prevailing); & followup (with Jack Shafer’s views)]
“Reign of the Philosopher-Kings”
In its bimonthly Policy Report, the Cato Institute (where I’m a senior fellow) summarizes some of the themes of Schools for Misrule. You can buy the book here; and if you’ve already read it, do consider giving it a rating or review at Amazon or your favorite book-related site.
Legal boilerplate appended to email
It probably isn’t accomplishing much: “Lawyers and experts on internet policy say no court case has ever turned on the presence or absence of such an automatic e-mail footer in America, the most litigious of rich countries.” [The Economist; & note comments that take issue with the above assertion, and also point out the uses of such footers in pre-trial discovery]
“Man Charged With Wiretapping for Using Phone During Traffic Stop”
Another twist on the assertion that state laws against wiretapping and unauthorized recording make it unlawful to record the cops: police in the town of Weare, N.H. charged a man with wiretapping after he placed a cellphone call during a traffic stop “because the officer’s voice could be heard in the background of his phone call.” [Lowering the Bar]