Good news for poo-flingers: a Colorado lawyer is arguing (on behalf of a client facing misdemeanor charges) that there’s a First Amendment right to deliver dog droppings to someone’s office as a means of political self-expression, at least if the lucky recipient is a member of Congress. (AP/Boston Globe, Jan. 18).
Posts Tagged ‘Colorado’
ADA: Colleges bend to accommodation demands
Amid a rapid rise in the number of students with disability diagnoses — diagnoses of learning disability, in particular — colleges and universities “have magnified services to help those students keep pace – from personal note-takers to high-tech computer equipment that reads aloud and types research papers. … The number of college students with disabilities has grown fivefold from three decades ago, when it was estimated at 2.3 percent.” At Regis University in Colorado, the number of students receiving accommodations has jumped more than fifty percent in three years, from 240 to 370. “The number of college students diagnosed with disabilities increased dramatically after the 1990 passage of the Americans with Disabilities Act, [Regis disability services director Joie] Williams said.” About 600 students use the “Access Center” at Denver’s Metropolitan State College: its services, which by law are free to students, include uploading textbooks onto students’ iPods. (Jennifer Brown, “More colleges helping with disabilities”, Denver Post, Nov. 26). For accommodation demands at the high school level, see, e.g., this Mar. 24 post.
Updates
Recent developments on past stories:
* Remember Shannon Peterson, the Denver condo owner who got sued by a neighbor who complained that she was taking baths too early? (Feb. 27). The case is still dragging on the better part of a year later, a judge having refused so far to throw it out. David Giacalone has the details (Nov. 30).
* Glamourpuss lawsuit-chaser Erin Brockovich, fresh from the humiliating dismissal (Nov. 18) of suits she fronted against California hospitals alleging Medicare overbilling, has been rebuffed in another high-profile case. This time a judge has dismissed twelve lawsuits brought by her law firm of Masry & Vititoe alleging that exposure to oil rigs at Beverly Hills High School caused cancer among students there (Martha Groves and Jessica Garrison, “School oil-rig lawsuits dismissed”, Los Angeles Times, Nov. 23) (via Nordberg who got it from Legal Reader). For more on the case, see Jul. 15 and Nov. 19, 2003, and Mar. 16, 2004. The New Republic has marked the occasion by reprinting its revealing 2003 article on the affair by Eric Umansky. P.S. More from Umansky, who has his own blog, here.
* Reader E.B. writes in to say:
Remember the group of parents (Oct. 23) who threatened litigation over their daughters’ playing time on the girl’s basketball team? The ones who demanded a six-person panel to oversee the selection of the players?
None of the parents’ daughters made the team. And they’re not happy about it. See C.W. Nevius, “Castro Valley hoops coach can’t win”, San Francisco Chronicle, Nov. 30.
* A court has dismissed the action (Aug. 10, 2005; Feb. 9, Feb. 20, Mar. 6, Jun. 28, 2006) by fair housing activists against Craigslist over user ads that expressed improper preferences or mentioned forbidden categories in soliciting tenants, apartment-sharers and so forth. (Anne Broache, “Craigslist wins housing ad dispute”, CNet, Nov. 17). However, blawger David Fish says the court’s reasoning was highly unfavorable to many other Internet companies generally, and may expose them to future liabilities (Nov. 15). Craigslist now has an elaborate page warning users that it is unlawful for them to post preferences, etc. in most situations not involving shared living space. Update: David Fish’s name corrected, apologies for earlier error.
* 3 pm update to the updates from Ted: “An Illinois intermediate appellate court overturned the $27 million verdict in Mikolajczyk v. Ford (which we reported on last year), ordering the lower court to replace the arbitrary jury verdict with a lower arbitrary number. Why the jury’s damage award is considered the product of passion and prejudice, but the same jury’s liability award is kosher, remains unclear. (Steve Patterson, “Court says $27 million crash award too much”, Chicago Sun-Times, Nov. 23).”
Welcome radio listeners
I was a guest Wednesday afternoon on Lars Larson’s nationwide talk show, based at Portland Oregon’s KXL, to discuss federal judge James Robertson’s ruling ordering the U.S. Treasury to redesign U.S. paper money so as not to exclude blind users from reasonable access (see yesterday’s post). And at 10 a.m. Mountain Standard Time this morning (Thursday) I’m scheduled to join Mike Rosen on his popular show based at Denver’s KOA, on the same topic.
More consumer protection that hurts consumers
A sardonic congratulations to the Washington DC lawyers who won a $1.4 million federal jury verdict against the Kroger subsidiary “King Soopers”, a Colorado grocery store that dared to give a 7-cents/gallon gasoline discount to customers who purchased $100 in groceries. Because of the “unfair trade” verdict, Colorado Safeway stores have announced that they will stop offering 10-cent/gallon discounts to customers who purchase $50 in groceries. Consumers everywhere will rest happy knowing that they have to pay more for gasoline and that lawyers profited from the experience. (Greg Griffin, “Safeway, too, caps customers’ gas savings”, Denver Post, Nov. 8). At least the Rocky Mountain News was sufficiently disgusted that it called for a repeal of the perverse 1937 law.
“Helping Christians who’ve been injured”
Thus reads the advertising tagline of Colorado Springs law firm McCormack & Murphy P.C. Shrewd marketing? Disturbingly exclusionary? A manifestation of sincere religious conviction? All of these? (David Lat, Above the Law, Aug. 31, who got it from Parenthetical Statement).
Fantasy sports lawsuit, cont’d
The Denver Post and National Law Journal have more on that lawsuit by Lakewood, Colorado lawyer Charles Humphrey and New Jersey’s Gardy & Notis (Aug. 2) claiming that CBS, ESPN and other media outlets are abetting unlawful gambling by sponsoring fantasy sports games, and seeking diversion of millions in resulting revenues into the plaintiff’s own fisc. Mississippi College School of Law sports law prof Michael McCann says Humphrey’s suit lacks “moral weight”. (Joel Grostephan, “Lawyer cites 1710 law in suit”, Denver Post, Aug. 15 (via Suz at Large); Tresa Baldas, “Fantasy Sports League or Real-Life Gambling?”, National Law Journal, Aug. 21)
Fantasy sports leagues? Shut ’em down
A class-action law firm, Gardy & Notis, is suing ESPN, Viacom, Disney, CBS, Hearst, and The Sporting News, among others, alleging that their participation in the thriving field of fantasy sports leagues violates the anti-gambling laws of New Jersey. DeadSpin notes (Jul. 31) that named plaintiff Charles Humphrey “is a resident of Colorado, not New Jersey, and he points out in the suit that he, in fact, has never played any of these fantasy games, unlike you, you heathens.” Humphrey’s press release is here and the complaint (PDF) is here (via Bill Childs and Kevin Heller). The complaint asserts a right to recovery under qui tam (bounty-hunting) laws of Illinois, Georgia and the District of Columbia which allow random outsiders to file lawsuits to recover moneys reaped by way of unlawful gambling.
Never trust content from “U.S. Surgeon General”
The Surgeon General of the United States last week claimed that “breathing secondhand smoke for even a short time” can “potentially increas[e] the risk of heart attack”. How much evidence is there for that proposition? Michael Siegel inquires (Jun. 28; Jacob Sullum, Reason “Hit and Run”, Jun. 28 and Jun. 29). According to Brooke Oberwetter of the Competitive Enterprise Institute, the same new report from the Surgeon General uncritically passes along the much-ballyhooed “miracle of Helena” study purporting to find a correlation between a ban on smoking in bars and an immediate 40 percent drop in heart attacks in that Montana community — really more like a miracle of small sample sizes (Jun. 27; see Oct. 6, 2003). Finally, a spokeswoman for the bossyboots American Heart Association is quoted praising a new Colorado law that forbids smoking in most restaurants and bars statewide no matter what the owners and patrons happen to prefer:
“We know from research that we’ve done that over 80 percent of Colorado residents don’t smoke,” said Erin Bertoli with the American Heart Association.
“The majority of them really look forward to going out to new restaurants and new bars and taking their families and experiencing new venues that have technically been closed to 80 percent of Colorado residents up until this point.”
thus demonstrating a Pickwickian understanding of such words as “technically” and “closed”. (Jeffrey Wolf, “Effort to stop statewide smoking ban underway “, KUSA-TV, Jun. 15). Plus: Radley Balko weighs in.
New Orleans judicial expense account spending questioned
A reader asks me to blog about an expose in this Sunday’s New Orleans Times-Picayune, calling it “appalling.” In 2003-2004, one judge (presumably the highest-spending judge) spent $16,717/year on travel, compared to the average $8,000 spent by other judges.
I don’t know whether this is a good judge or a bad judge, but that shouldn’t matter to my analysis. I’m less appalled. Someone has to be the highest-spending judge, and this one doesn’t appear to have violated any rules. $4,400 in taxpayer money was spent to teach a course in Colorado, but if the judge had been reimbursed by the Louisiana Association of Defense Counsel, different people would be complaining about the supposed conflict of interest. The newspaper successfully nitpicks rental-car and airport transportation costs—but the judge must have travelled coach, because there’s no complaint about his airplane tickets. One can question the political savvy of a judge who doesn’t realize that his expense account reports are going to be scrutinized. One can also complain that the money comes from civil district court filing fees, but, at the end of the day, money is fungible and it doesn’t really matter what pot the money comes from. It would probably be more efficient to end travel reimbursements and just raise salaries—but because of tax implications, maybe not.
Louisiana state judges make less than first-year associates in private law firms, and I’m not about to complain that a judge was a little generous with himself in taking advantage of available and legal perks to the tune of a few thousand dollars. There appears to already exist a check in the system, in that this judge’s request for a week-long educational trip to Italy was rejected.
Or am I so overly jaded by plaintiffs’ bar abuses in the billions that I should be more appalled? Feel free to comment in the comment section, but be polite and on-topic.