Archive for the ‘Uncategorized’ Category

Revealing someone’s criminal record = privacy invasion?

Eugene Volokh on the background of a case now pending in the Ninth Circuit:

Unfortunately, for several decades, California courts did indeed take the view that accurately discussing people’s crimes from a decade or more ago could lead to legal liability. Such speech, a discussion in a 1971 California Supreme Court said, serves no “public purpose” and is not “of legitimate public interest”; there is no “reason whatsoever” for it, when (in the court’s view) the plaintiff has been “rehabilitated” and has “paid his debt to society.”

In 2004, the state’s high court recognized that as regards the media and its reporting, this stance had become inconsistent with modern views of the First Amendment. Unfortunately, the court left open the possibility that non-media defendants might still face damage suits for privacy invasion over such disclosures, and exactly that possibility has now eventuated in a case by the name of Readylink Healthcare v. Lynch. (Mar. 15)

Update: assigning air carrier poor safety grade not defamation

Following up on our item of last May 12: the Eighth Circuit federal court of appeals ruled last year that the safety rating group ARGUS (Aviation Research Group) had not defamed Aviation Charter Inc. in 2001 by assigning the charter operator its lowest safety rating, “DNQ” or “Does Not Qualify”. Aviation Charter Inc. operated the plane whose crash a year later, in 2002, killed Sen. Paul Wellstone of Minnesota and seven others. The Eighth Circuit affirmed a lower court’s decision to dismiss the suit, saying ARGUS’s comparative ratings involved subjective interpretations of data and were not “sufficiently factual to be susceptible of being proved true or false”. So for now, at least, it seems that if you want to rate air carriers’ safety, go ahead and rate away. (“Court decisions: Air carrier’s poor safety rating isn’t defamatory”, National Law Journal, Aug. 1, 2005, not online).

Regulation vs. sous vide

We’re here from the government, and since we haven’t yet considered how to regulate your new cooking technique, we’re not going to let you use it (Dana Bowen, “With City Inspectors in Kitchen, Chefs Can’t Cook in a Vacuum”, New York Times, Mar. 9; Virginia Postrel, Mar. 10; Dana Bowen, “Chefs Wait for Rules on Sous Vide, as Experts Question Some Uses”, New York Times, Mar. 15)(& No Quarters).

Update: Trump decamps to Camden

Caesar’s forum-shopping dept.: Donald Trump has filed his $5 billion defamation suit against author and New York Times reporter Timothy O’Brien (see Jan. 25, Feb. 12) not in the courts of some boringly obvious place like, say, Manhattan, but in Camden, New Jersey, which happens to be “where his golf buddy, George Norcross II, the state’s behind-the-scenes political kingmaker, holds court. In 2001, Norcross, an exec at Commerce Bank, was caught on tape boasting of having engineered a judgeship for a political foe ‘just to get rid of him.’ Norcross’s claim to control the New Jersey courts was only bluster, his longtime lawyer, William Tambussi, said at the time. Tambussi has also been retained by Trump in his suit.” (Geoffrey Gray, “Intelligencer: Trump’s Jersey Trump Card”, New York, Mar. 13).

Restrained, tasteful lawyer advertising, cont’d

A lawyer’s commercials depict him spinning “like a human tornado, generating cash for his clients,” and proclaim “GOAL” in soccer style as he gets checks. “As long as my ads are not false or misleading, I can say what I want to say,” says Glen Lerner, who’s currently in a dispute with the State Bar of Nevada about the wording of one of his slogans, “The Heavy Hitter”. “I’m selling a product. Me … I’m like the Ty-D-Bol man.” (Glenn Puit, “‘Heavy Hitter’ will sue”, Las Vegas Review-Journal, Mar. 2)(via Lattman).

Organ obbligato

Long before their current “medical adventure”, I was a besotted fan of the writings of Virginia Postrel and Sally Satel, and also proud to count them both as friends. Now Virginia has single-handedly (single-kidneyedly?) refuted the old calumnies that tar libertarians as selfish, only out for Number One, etc. (Mar. 3, Mar. 7). Best wishes to them both for a speedy recovery.

“Court bars rapist from suing victim”

Connecticut:

A Superior Court judge in New London Friday permanently barred a convicted rapist who had harassed his victim with a series of legal actions from filing further lawsuits without the permission of a judge. Judge Clarance J. Jones issued a permanent injunction against Allen Adgers, who is serving a 13-year sentence for kidnapping and raping his former wife at knife-point, said Attorney General Richard Blumenthal, whose office sought the order….

[The wife] moved six times, but Adgers was able to learn her new address each time by filing a legal action that resulted in her being served with a subpoena. As part of the subpoena process, Adgers would get a receipt recording the address where service was made. He sent her harassing letters, which has added four years to his original 13-year sentence. But he still was allowed to force his former wife into court. Acting as his own attorney, the rapist was able to question and taunt his victim….

Blumenthal said that Adgers, in addition to harassing his victim, also filed 16 frivolous lawsuits against government officials since 2001. That will end with the order issued Friday.

(Mark Pazniokas, “Judge Halts Rape Victim’s Ordeal”, Hartford Courant, Feb. 25). Jonathan B. Wilson, who spotted the case, says one lesson — given that it took a situation this extreme to trigger an injunction — is that the system is likely to allow a great deal of litigation abuse in less facially outrageous cases: “So long as plaintiffs have the capacity of filng suit and engaging in discovery without satisfying any minimal standard of justification, unscrupulous plaintiffs will be able to use the compulsive power of the courts to impose frustration and costs on defendants.” (Feb. 26).

No more anonymous commenting

…if a New Jersey legislator gets his way. (Reason “Hit and Run”, Mar. 7). The idea is to make sure legal remedies are available “to persons injured by false or defamatory messages posted on public forum websites”. More: Michael Krauss. Update May 9: the legislator is reportedly going to withdraw the bill, following a storm of online criticism (via Reynolds).

Burger King hot coffee lawsuit settles

ATLA and its surrogates would have you believe that the McDonald’s coffee case reflected the unique circumstances of one chain that sold coffee hotter than anyone else. We’ve been telling you for a while that that’s not true, and there’s now another datapoint in Oklahoma. Donna Aslanis purchased two cups of coffee from a Rolla, Missouri, Burger King drive-thru in 1998, but burned herself severely when she spilled the coffee while pouring it into a plastic container in her lap, and sued in 2002, complaining that the employee failed to tell her that the coffee was hot. The case went into mediation and settled; the amount (if any) of settlement was not disclosed. Her lawyer was Steven Paulus. (Ryan Slight, “Woman settles in hot coffee lawsuit”, News-Leader, Mar. 7). (More on Stella Liebeck.)