The Legal Times has a great deal more about the litigiousness of Mr. Sibley:
Posts Tagged ‘Maryland’
Another flasher’s-remorse case loses
Once again, second thoughts prove unavailing after modesty is cast to the winds: “A magazine that published a photograph of a woman baring her breasts at a pig roast for motorcycle enthusiasts did not intrude on her privacy, a federal judge has ruled. Tonya Barnhart sued Paisano Publications LLC, publisher of Easyriders magazine, after it ran the picture of her in its March 2005 issue, claiming unreasonable intrusion, false light invasion of privacy and appropriation of her likeness.” But U.S. District Judge J. Frederick Motz of Maryland ruled against Barnhart on summary judgment. Her behavior “cannot reasonably be said to have constituted a private act,” Motz wrote. “She exposed herself at an outdoor fundraising event open to any members of the public who purchased a ticket.” (“Judge: Photo of woman baring her breasts didn’t violate privacy”, Examiner.com, Oct. 23; “Woman Can’t Sue Magazine After Flashing Breasts”, AP/WBAL, Oct. 23; link to Memorandum and Order). Similar: Jul. 4, 2006, etc.
WBAL “Ron Smith show”
I was a guest on the high-rated Baltimore show this afternoon, discussing my BlackBerry column.
Summary Judgment Like a Good Wine
The First Circuit Court of Appeals recently vacated a “substantial” jury verdict in a defamation case against The Boston Phoenix, finding that the lower court was too quick to earlier rule on summary judgment that the plaintiff, a Maryland state prosecutor, was not a “public figure” for purposes of libel law.
Judge Selya chose an interesting metaphor to open the Court’s opinion:
“The oenologist’s creed teaches that we should drink no wine before its time. Much the same
principle applies to summary judgment; it is a deliciously helpful device if properly timed, but one that can leave a sour taste if brought to bear on an insufficiently fermented record.”
Orson Wells introduced us to that motto on behalf of that tower of oenological perfection, Paul Masson. But like the wine of Paul Masson, I find Judge Selya’s stretching of the metaphor a little dry on the palate.
On the radio
Yesterday I was a guest on two radio shows. I joined Ron Smith on Baltimore’s WBAL to discuss my article, just out, on the lawsuit against MySpace for failing to chaperone a teenage user. And I joined Grover Norquist on his Rightalk broadcast to talk about the politics of liability reform.
Suit: Your niece is ugly
A Massachusetts family is suing a Maryland family over what they call an arranged marriage for their 37-year-old son, Pranjul K. Pandey. The Pandeys called off the marriage after travelling to New Delhi when they decided the bride was too homely. (The former lawyer for the bride’s family denies that there was an arranged marriage, and that the meeting was informal.) The suit seeks $200,000 for fraud, violation of civil rights, and emotional distress. Among the defendants is Emergent BioSolutions Inc., a Gaithersburg company that employs the uncle of the woman in question. One can’t blame the lawyers for this one: the plaintiff, Vijai B. Pandey, previously convicted of bank fraud, is a frequent litigant, and has filed this case pro se. (Marla A. Goldberg, “Family sues over ‘ugly’ bride”, MassLive.com/The Republican, Jul. 5 (via Romenesko)).
Was the Garza Vioxx case fraudulent?
That’s what overwhelming evidence seems to suggest, I write in Point of Law. I ask: does anyone want to claim that the Garza case was an example of the jury system working well?
Also there: Michael Krauss and I criticize the Ninth Circuit’s command to Los Angeles that the Eighth Amendment prohibits them from arresting homeless people in Skid Row for their conduct; why you can’t believe everything you quoted from plaintiffs’ lawyers in the press; Maryland lead paint legislation; and who really outspends whom in ballot battles.
The Do-Not-Shop List
According to the Washington Post, “The U.S. Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control maintains its ‘Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons List’ to be easily accessible on its public Web site.” It is a list of foreign persons and entities suspected of certain terrorist or criminal activities and associations. Per federal law, American businesses are forbidden to engage in transactions with those listed, on pain of “harsh penalties that include 30 years in jail and fines up to $10 million against corporations, and $5 million against individuals, and civil penalties of up to $1 million per incident”.
Although the main regulatory impact of the law appears to have fallen on financial institutions and on big-ticket retailers such as auto dealers, per Maryland attorney Thomas B. Hudson of Hudson Cook LLP, the law’s regulatory reach is wider than one might think, because it “prohibits anyone, not just car dealers, from doing business with” those on the list, so that selling a newspaper, or a bottle of soda pop, or a shoeshine, to one of the malefactors, is equally unlawful. Purveyors of all these goods and services are apparently expected to get their customers’ names, and check them against the list, before doing business if they really want to feel secure they’re not breaking the law (Don Oldenburg, “Hit-and-Miss List: If You’re in This Directory, Forget Shopping”, Washington Post, Apr. 9). For more on the weird implications of the concept I once dubbed “merchandise laundering”, see my Reason piece of March 1999.
Licensed Handgun Carry Wins in Kansas
Over-riding the Governor’s veto, the Kansas legislature has enacted a “Shall Issue” law for issuing licenses to carry a concealed handgun for lawful protection. Before, Kansas was one of only four states without any provision for issuing concealed handgun licenses. One of the remaining three states, Nebraska, appears poised to enact a similar law, which the Governor has said he will sign.
Kansas is now among the 39 states which have a fair procedure to allow citizens to carry handguns for protection. Along with the three states (Nebraska, Wisconsin, IIllinois) that currently do not issue permits, eight other states issue permits according to the whim of a local official (Hawaii, California, Maryland, New Jersey, New York, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and Delaware). A Shall Issue bill is moving through the legislature in Delaware. Rhode Island already has a Shall Issue law, although the law is nullified by administrative practice.
In Wisconsin, a Shall Iissue bill has been vetoed twice, with the vetos sustained by only one or two votes. In every state where Shall Issue proponents have gotten as close as they have in Wisconsin, the state has always eventually enacted a Shall Issue law–although sometimes the process can take a while.
So of the eleven remaining states that are not Shall Issue, two of them (Nebraska and Wisconsin) are nearly certain to change at some point in the future, and there is reasonable possiblity of change in Delaware. All that Rhode Island needs to change is the election of Attorney General who will not interfere with the state law that local goverments must issue carry permits to qualified applicants.
So the number of Shall Issue states could be 43 in the not too distant future. In the seven hold-out states, Shall Issue has passed one body of the legislature at least once in the three largest states: California, New York, and Illinois.
Every year, more and more Shall Issue states create “reciprocity” with each other, so that a person with a permit from her home state can carry her firearm lawfully in a other state while visiting. Currently, a carry permit issued by one state is valid in over half of all states. (See Packing.org for details.)
As the combined total of “no issue” or “whimsical issue” states declines into the single digits, and reciprocity continues to spread, it seems hard to deny that America is concluding that Shall Issue is sensible gun control — one that regulates firearms carrying but does not infringe the right to self-defense.
For more on the Kansas law, see this excellent article in the Wichita Eagle.
“Midwest Oil fined for selling gas too cheaply”
Yep, it’s happened again: “The Minnesota Commerce Department on Thursday announced plans to fine a gas station chain $140,000 for repeatedly selling gas below the state’s legal minimum price.” (Tom Ford, Minneapolis Star-Tribune, Feb. 24). For earlier installments, see Jun. 5, 2004 (Minnesota again), May 21, 2005 (Maryland). And, of course, for the reverse, see Feb. 17, etc.