At the Point of Law election roundtable, I’ve got a periodically updated post giving results on some races of legal interest. P.S. And keep scrolling there for comments from Ted on results in California, Michigan, Connecticut…
Posts Tagged ‘Michigan’
Thumbs down on Va. marriage amendment
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).
Update: anti-milk suit dismissed
A federal judge in the District of Columbia has dismissed a lawsuit against dairy manufacturers filed by the animal-rights group that calls itself the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine (PCRM). The lawsuit claimed that it was legally wrongful for producers not to label dairy products to warn of the risk of lactose intolerance (“District Court Dismisses Anti-Dairy Lawsuit”, USAgNet/Wisconsin Ag Connection, Sept. 5). Ted covered the suit Jun. 21, 2005; see also May 28, 2004. Bill Childs comments on the dismissal (Aug. 23) and also has details of a ruling by the Michigan Supreme Court (over two dissents) that a hair oil manufacturer did not have to warn of the dangers of ingesting its product.
Big news day
Looking for commentary on recent developments in tobacco, Vioxx, or Katrina cases? Check our sister site, Point of Law, for extensive detailed discussion on all three, as well as Will Wilson on the perils of fifty state attorneys general negotiating Medicare fraud claims, information missing from the Wall Street Journal’s punitive damages debate, Michigan’s ban on asbestos bundled settlements, ABC’s John Stossel on the plaintiffs’ bar, and much, much more.
Warrantless Wiretapping Program Struck Down
I have perused the decision by a federal district judge in Michigan declaring the NSA warrantless wiretapping program to be in violation of both FISA and the Fourth Amendment and have some thoughts.
While the decision contains a wealth of flowery language reminiscent of, say, a post by a libertarian blawger, it is rather weak on actual analysis. On the other hand, what little analysis it contains is spot-on accurate.
“Teen Sues Mother for ID of Father”
“In a case that family law experts fear could set a dangerous precedent, a Michigan teenager is suing his mother to learn the identity of his father. Family law attorneys say the issue of compelling a mother to reveal the identity of the biological father is a new area of law. And depending on how the Michigan judge rules in the case, they say, courts nationally could see a new flood of lawsuits of children suing their parents.” (Tresa Baldas, National Law Journal, Aug. 11).
Mich. high court reinstates Geoffrey Fieger reprimand
By a 4-3 margin, the Supreme Court of Michigan has ruled that the First Amendment does not protect “the interests of an officer of the court in uttering vulgar epithets toward the court in a pending case” (decision in PDF format, p. 19) and has therefore sent back a case involving the disciplining of Geoffrey Fieger with instructions to reinstate the reprimand. After seeing a $15 million medical malpractice verdict overturned, Michigan’s most prominent plaintiff’s lawyer had described the appellate judges who ruled against him as variously “jackasses”, “Hitler”, “Goebbels” and “Eva Braun”, said that he was declaring war on them, said that they could kiss a portion of his anatomy not generally revealed in public, and repeatedly proposed that various objects be employed to assault a similar location on their persons.
In dissent, Justice Michael Cavanagh wrote that it matters not whether Fieger violated “a disciplinary rule he swore to obey when admitted to the practice of law”. The point is instead that “the judiciary, upon which is conferred unique powers, significant influence and considerable insulation, must not be so shielded that the public is denied its right to temper this institution”. Which raises at least one question: in what sense should Fieger be counted as a member of the “public” for these purposes? As a lawyer deputized with power to initiate compulsory process to drag unwilling parties into the Michigan courts, wouldn’t it be fair to say that “unique powers, significant influence and considerable insulation” have been conferred on him, too, in exchange for which he might reasonably be asked to submit to professional rules not applicable to the general public to guard against the abuse of these unique powers? (Dawson Bell, “Fieger reprimanded for attacks on judges”, Detroit Free Press, Jul. 31; Charlie Cain, “High court reinstates Fieger reprimand for comments”, Detroit News, Aug. 1).
We covered the controversy at hand (and its underlying lawsuit) Sept. 14, 1999, May 3, 2001, and Apr. 3, 2006. Other coverage of Fieger’s antics can be found here.
The High Cost of Petitioning
A radical pro-affirmative action group, By Any Means Necessary (BAMN), joined by Detroit’s mayor, Kwame Kilpatrick, have filed a Voting Rights Act lawsuit against the sponsors of the Michigan Civil Rights Initiative (MCRI) in federal court. MCRI is a ballot initiative would ban racial and gender set-asides and preferences in state contracting, employment, and public education. It is modeled on an earlier measure passed by California voters and upheld by the federal courts. BAMN argues that black voters who signed the petition to put MCRI on the ballot did so only because they did not realize it would restrict affirmative action, because they were confused by MCRI’s title, text, or misleading statements by MCRI signature gatherers. That, it claims, amounts to fraud.
BAMN’s lawsuit is factually groundless. Its fraud claims were considered and rejected by the Michigan Court of Appeals, which ordered MCRI placed on the ballot. MCRI’s text, which was presented to all petition signers, expressly prohibits racial preferences, eliminating any confusion about its effect on affirmative action. Moreover, the Voting Rights Act generally applies to the acts of state election officials, not private parties, and cases such as Delgado v. Smith, 861 F.2d 1489 (11th Cir. 1988), hold that the Voting Rights Act does not apply to initiative petitions.
BAMN’s lawsuit appears to be part of a pattern of intimidation. One BAMN official is accused of threatening MCRI executive director Jennifer Gratz with a knife.
BAMN’s suit is another example of how civil rights lawsuits are increasingly misused as political weapons or tools of censorship. For example, in Affordable Housing Development Corporation v. Fresno, 433 F.3d 1182 (9th Cir. 2006), a developer used the Fair Housing Act to sue citizens who publicly opposed a housing development, arguing that their petitioning of city officials resulted in the city not funding the project. That, the developer argued, had an unlawful “disparate impact” on minority groups destined to live in the development. The trial court initially accepted this argument, holding that the Fair Housing Act overrode the citizens’ right of free speech. Years later, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals rejected the lawsuit, holding that the citizens’ opposition to the project was protected by the First Amendment and the Noerr-Pennington doctrine. (The Noerr-Pennington doctrine protects citizens from antitrust and civil rights claims based on their speech and petitioning activity). It ordered the developer to pay the citizens’ crippling legal bills, which had risen to hundreds of thousands of dollars.
BAMN’s lawsuit would raise First Amendment problems even if it were true that voters misunderstood MCRI’s purpose, and even if MCRI’s sponsors knew of any erroneous statements about MCRI by signature gatherers. The courts have generally held that the First Amendment bars liability for speech in ballot initiatives and other political campaigns, even if the speech is knowingly false.
Michigan drug liability law
Trial lawyers in Michigan continue to agitate for repeal of the law, which, uniquely among the 50 states, affords manufacturers a defense in product liability actions for pharmaceuticals marketed in compliance with FDA regulation. At the Manhattan Institute (with which I’m associated), a new report from the Trial Lawyers Inc. project defends the law (“The Move to Reverse Michigan’s Model Reforms”, June). Also see Point of Law, Apr. 11.
Update: McLeod v. Mt. Sinai Medical Center
We covered this case as Hollins v. Jordan in 2004 on Nov. 20, Oct. 11, and Aug. 31. In a disingenuous 2-1 opinion, an Ohio appellate court overturned the lower court’s grant of a new trial, and reinstated the liability verdict. The court did hold that the $30 million verdict was too high, but it is unlikely to be reduced more than 20%. I found the dissent, starting on page 23, persuasive; the majority opinion falsely claims that the defendants did not challenge liability on appeal to argue that there was no need for a new trial. New detail that the press did not cover: the plaintiff suffered from microcephaly—is there a legitimate doctor out there who wishes to claim that brain damage from microcephaly results from the failure to perform a C-section? Also worth reading in the dissent is the detailing of the dishonesty with which Geoffrey Fieger characterized testimony. Lawyers plan to appeal to the Ohio Supreme Court. (AP/Canton Repository, May 5 (link fixed 5:45 pm)).