As in earlier rounds (May 31 and Nov. 2, 2004, etc.), some proponents are advancing the view that despite its sweeping and ambiguous language, the amendment wouldn’t really endanger any existing legal rights of unmarried persons in Virginia. The Roanoke Times editorially rejects that view: “The legal views conflict sharply. This can mean just one thing: years of litigation under every facet of law that touches upon human interactions. In the antagonistic court arena, the relationships of families and friends will be ripped apart. … Voters should reject this unfair amendment, which has the potential for so many unintended consequences.” (“The anti-family amendment” (editorial), Roanoke Times, Sept. 19). See also Mar. 20, 2005 (sequence of events in Michigan).
Archive for the ‘Uncategorized’ Category
The next class-action defendant?
Mike of the Crime & Federalism blog seems to have identified the next culprit to blame for the obesity epidemic. The record, however, should reflect that I beat him to the punch in publishing, in a law-review article that a reader informs me is the first to mention Count Chocula in the footnotes.
WBAL “Ron Smith show”
I was a guest on the high-rated Baltimore show this afternoon, discussing my BlackBerry column.
Efficiency and safety
Justinian Lane writes in the comments: “I oppose any tort reform measure that places corporate efficiency ahead of the public safety.”
I don’t believe him. I mean, perhaps Lane honestly believes that one can always put safety ahead of efficiency, but if so, it’s because he hasn’t thought about it very deeply.
Claim: toupee dispute caused heart attack
When Paula’s Wig Boutique in Orange, Conn., filed a small claims action against Paul Lewis for $1,200, the cost of a hairpiece he hadn’t paid for, he countersued seeking more than $15,000 in damages saying that the boutique’s collection efforts had caused him a heart attack. (Dirk Perrefort, “Milford man counter-sues in hairpiece lawsuit”, Connecticut Post, Sept. 15; “Man: Toupee almost killed me”, AP/Danbury (Ct.) News-Times, Sept. 15).
Justinian Lane: reform supporter?
Until now, we’ve ignored a small left-wing think-tank’s admitted attempt to create a Bizarro-world version of Overlawyered. The writers are a recent college graduate and a recent law-school graduate who don’t appear to have actually read anything reformers write in support of reform. (For example, one post links to Overlawyered when defending the infamous McDonald’s coffee lawsuit, but fails to address any of Overlawyered’s arguments for why the McDonald’s coffee case is meritless, and simply repeats ATLA propaganda that Overlawyered refuted.) The blog has consisted mostly of thoughtless regurgitation of trial-lawyer talking points; when original analysis is attempted, it rises to the level of self-parody, such as an analysis of Leonard v. Nationwide (see POL Sep. 7 and links therein) that ignores the language of the insurance policy, the relevant Mississippi precedent, the existing discussion in the blogosphere, and any semblance of public policy rationalization in lieu of a Wikipedia definition to argue that the decision (and the defendant) are racist because some African-American plaintiffs might lose as a result.
Another such post is Justinian Lane’s “The Myth of the Frivolous Lawsuit.” The standard trial-lawyer talking point on such issues is to redefine “frivolous lawsuit” to consist of an exceedingly narrow subset of what it is laypeople are talking about when using the term “frivolous lawsuits,” note that the legal system has some mechanisms to address this narrow subset of cases, and then conclude that there’s no problem and thus no need for reform. (Or, as per John Edwards, announce Potemkin legislation to tackle this artificially constrained set of “frivolous lawsuits” that does nothing to actually address the problems of the tort system.) But Lane, perhaps because of his unfamiliarity with the legal system, bites off more than he can chew and inadvertently proves the reformers’ point.
One year for mouse-in-soup scam
Ricky Lee Patterson had been seeking a $500,000 settlement from Cracker Barrel restaurant. “Prosecutors brought charges after an examination of the mouse found that it died of a fractured skull, had no soup in its lungs and had not been cooked – all of which suggested the rodent was dropped into the customer’s soup after it had died.” (AP, Sep. 14).
“We’ll getcha & mangle ya”
David Lat on nicknames of big law firms: “Cruel & Boring” for Crowell & Moring may be the best known, while “Huge Cupboards of Greed” (Hughes Hubbard & Reed) was new to me (Sept. 13).
Another Grand Theft Auto lawsuit
The lawyers just love to sue Rockstar Games (e.g., Aug. 17; Mar. 5; Jul. 27, 2005; Feb. 19, 2005; Dec. 29, 2003); this particularly ludicrous suit alleged that “Grand Theft Auto:San Andreas,” the first part of which takes place in an ersatz parody of Los Angeles, infringed the trademark of a local strip club, “The Play Pen” because the game’s version, “The Pig Pen,” (one of hundreds of locations in the game) had a similar name and also had a parking lot and a round awning. Judge Margaret M. Morrow rebuffed the claim. But it took 100 entries on the docket, numerous depositions of game designers, expert-witness surveys, and a 55-page judicial opinion before this common-sense issue could be resolved in court. Moreover, the PlayPen attorneys say they’ll appeal, subjecting the matter to the random-legal-opinion generation of the Ninth Circuit. (AP, Aug. 8; Trademark Blog; E.S.S. Entertainment 2000 v. Rock Star Videos, CV 05-02966 MMM (C.D. Cal. July 28, 2006)).
In the weird coincidence department, one of the junior defense attorneys in the suit is not only someone who has worked on behalf of the RIAA in their oft-criticized “spamigation” suits against individuals who allegedly illegally download songs, but a co-creator of the lonelygirl15 Internet phenomenon.
More on Nelson Rocks Preserve disclaimer
The amusing and well-written rock-climbing disclaimer we linked to yesterday had already been the subject of some attention around the web. Attorney David Canton used it as the model for a disclaimer about doing business on the Internet that was in turn picked up on Slashdot (May 6).
Unfortunately, the Nelson Rocks Preserve itself, which includes some of the most challenging terrain in the Eastern United States, has mostly closed itself to rock climbing by the public following a number of injuries and rescue emergencies. A few days ago (Sept. 9) Tom at AllClimbing.com passed along a rumor that the preserve might reopen next year. (Update Nov. 2010: Legal Blog Watch).