- More on that New Mexico claim of “electro-sensitive” Wi-Fi allergy: quoted complainant is a longtime activist who’s written an anti-microwave book [VNUNet, USA Today “On Deadline” via ABA Journal]
- Your wisecracks belong to us: “Giant Wall of Legal Disclaimers” at Monsters Inc. Laugh Floor at Disneyland [Lileks; h/t Carter Wood]
- New at Point of Law: AAJ commissions a poll on arbitration and gets the results it wants; carbon nanotubes, tomorrow’s asbestos? California will require lawyers operating without professional liability insurance to inform clients of that fact (earlier here and here); and much more.
- Actuaries being sued for underestimating funding woes of public pension plans [NY Times via ABA Journal]
- City of Santa Monica and other defendants will pay $21 million to wrap up lawsuits from elderly driver’s 2003 rampage through downtown farmers’ market [L.A. Times; earlier]
- Sequel to Giants Stadium/Aramark dramshop case, which won a gigantic award later set aside, is fee claim by fired lawyer for plaintiff [NJLJ; Rosemarie Arnold site]
- Privacy law with an asterisk: federal law curbing access to drivers license databases has exemption that lets lawyers purchase personal data to help in litigation [Daily Business Review]
- Terror of FEMA: formaldehyde in Katrina trailers looks to emerge as mass toxic injury claim, and maybe we’ll find out fifteen years hence whether there was anything to it [AP/NOCB]
- Suit by “ABC” firm alleges that Yellow Book let other advertisers improperly sneak in with earlier alphabetical entries [Madison County Record]
- Gun law compliance, something for the little people? A tale from Chicago’s Board of Aldermen [Sun-Times, Ald. Richard Mell]
- Think twice about commissioning a mural for your building since federal law may restrain you from reclaiming the wall at a later date [four years ago on Overlawyered]
Posts Tagged ‘New Mexico’
Claim: allergic to wi-fi
“A group in Santa Fe says the city is discriminating against them because they say that they’re allergic to the wireless Internet signal. And now they want Wi-Fi banned from public buildings. … [Arthur] Firstenberg and dozens of other electro-sensitive people in Santa Fe claim that putting up Wi-Fi in public places is a violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The city attorney is now checking to see if putting up Wi-Fi could be considered discrimination. But City Councilor Ron Trujillo says the areas are already saturated with wireless Internet.” (Gadi Schwartz, KOB, May 20).
April 11 roundup
- Plenty of reaction to our Tuesday post questioning the NYT school-bullying story, including reader comments and discussion at other blogs; one lawprof passes along a response by the Wolfe family to the Northwest Arkansas Times’s reporting [updated post]
- Geoffrey Fieger, of jury-swaying fame, says holding his forthcoming criminal trial in Detroit would be unfair because juries there hate his guts [Detroit News]
- Another Borat suit down as Judge Preska says movie may be vulgar but has social value, and thus falls into “newsworthiness” exception to NY law barring commercial use of persons’ images [ABA Journal]
- Employer found mostly responsible for accident that occurred after its functionaries overrode a safety device, but a heavy-equipment dealer also named as defendant will have to pay more than 90 percent of resulting $14.6 million award [Bloomington, Ill. Pantagraph]
- New Mexico Human Rights Commission fines photographer $6600 for refusing a job photographing same-sex commitment ceremony [Volokh, Bader]
- “Virginia reaches settlement with families of VA Tech shooting victims” [Jurist]
- Roger Parloff on downfall of Dickie Scruggs [Fortune]
- Judge in Spain fined heavily and disbarred for letting innocent man spend more than a year in jail [AP/IHT, Guardian]
- Hard to know whether all those emergency airplane groundings actually improved safety, they might even have impaired it [Murray/NRO “Corner”, WSJ edit]
- “Freedom of speech is an American concept, so I don’t give it any value” — tracking down the context of that now-celebrated quote from a Canadian Human Rights Commission investigator [Volokh]
- Who was it that said that lawyers “need to be held accountable for frivolous lawsuits that help drive up the cost of malpractice insurance”? Hint: initials are J.E. [three years ago on Overlawyered]
N.M. high court to review insurance-installment class settlement
New Mexico in recent years has been the scene of a little cottage industry in class-action settlements over insurance companies’ allegedly inadequate disclosure of charges on installment payments. Settlements often involve pledges to inform consumers more fully, modest coupons, and impressively large legal fees to the circle of law firms that file the cases. According to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, nearly every large insurer selling life and disability coverage has been hit with a New Mexico class action in the past decade. Now, for the first time, the state high court is set to review one such settlement, in a case against First Colony/Genworth. The “settlements have not been free of controversy, with even some policyholder-plaintiffs describing the lawsuits as frivolous and the attorney fees as excessive”; cumulatively they have brought the class counsel more than $41 million in fees. (Thomas J. Cole, “New Mexico’s Supreme Court to Review Award of $6.5 Million in Attorney Fees in Suits Against Insurer”, Albuquerque Journal, Feb. 14 courtesy NM Legal Reform; earlier).
Update: N.M. pipeline rescuers can sue for emotional distress
Three years ago we prematurely reported that sanity had (as of that point) prevailed in the New Mexico case where firefighters and emergency medical personnel, otherwise uninjured, were seeking to sue El Paso Natural Gas over the emotional trauma of witnessing the disaster scene after a 2000 pipeline explosion. Earlier this month, however, the New Mexico Supreme Court ruled the other way, poking a big hole in the “firefighters’ rule” which traditionally barred recovery by rescuers against those who cause accidents. Chief Justice Edward Chavez wrote that to throw out the emotional-distress suits would be to “reward reckless or intentional acts”. The suits now head to trial. (Stella Davis, “Responders can sue in pipeline explosion”, Carlsbad Current Argus, Dec. 5).
The civil right to be cruel
But first, a greeting, and a thank you to the Overlawyered boys for inviting me to guest-blog this week. I’m Ron Coleman, proprietor of the LIKELIHOOD OF CONFUSION® blog on trademark, copyright and free speech law, and a contributor to Dean’s World and other things. In short, I love practicing law so much that I spend most of the day blogging.
So much for self-promotion (if you can call it that) — now to the promotion of animal cruelty — it’s all the rage, after all:
A new state law against fighting roosters violates a treaty that ended the Mexican-American War, a cockfighting association claims in a lawsuit.
The New Mexico Gamefowl Breeders Association and six businessmen argued that the law infringes on rights protected under the 1848 Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, which made New Mexico a U.S. territory.
The lawsuit contends the treaty guarantees civil, political and religious rights, privileges and immunities to the people of New Mexico.
Many of the association’s 2,000 members “are devoted to rural lifestyles, of which gamefowl breeding and-or participating in gamefowl shows and fights are, in New Mexico, long-standing, culturally bound and significant activities,” the lawsuit said.
Wow, some treaty! It guarantees the right to — well, to do what, exactly? Let’s ask the Humane Society:
Cockfighting is a centuries-old blood sport in which two or more specially bred birds, known as gamecocks, are placed in an enclosure to fight, for the primary purposes of gambling and entertainment. A cockfight usually results in the death of one of the birds; sometimes it ends in the death of both. A typical cockfight can last anywhere from several minutes to more than half an hour.
The birds, even those who do not die, suffer in cockfights. The birds cannot escape from the fight, regardless of how exhausted or injured they become. Common injuries include punctured lungs, broken bones, and pierced eyes. Such severe injuries occur because the birds’ legs are usually fitted with razor-sharp steel blades or with gaffs, which resemble three-inch-long, curved ice picks. These artificial spurs are designed to puncture and mutilate.
Nice. And, best of all, tanto auténtico! What judge could resist such a rootsy appeal to heartless blood lust? Plus there’s dinero at stake, too.
Okay, so what’s the legal theory again? Oh, yeah, that’s right: This novel civil right — the right to engage in any “long-standing, culturally bound and significant activities” — is enshrined in the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo. Well, here’s the Treaty: You see the clause guaranteeing the inalienable right to “long-standing, culturally bound and significant activities”?
No? Okay, well how about just the piece about roosters? Any specifications for ice picks?
Me neither. The only thing I remember about the unlikely juxtaposition of ice picks and Mexico is a certain unpleasantness involving some murderous Bolsheviks. Now, we saw then that “breaking a few eggs” can be unpleasant, but these poor chickens deserve better. Plaintiffs in this lawsuit, however, don’t.
UPDATE: Wow. There’s more to this civil right than I thought!
Furor over imams’ John Doe suit
“House Republicans are pushing legislation to protect airline passengers from lawsuits for reporting suspicious behavior that might be linked to a terrorist attack. Rep. Steve Pearce, New Mexico Republican, introduced the Protecting Americans Fighting Terrorism Act of 2007 on Thursday, a week after a lawsuit was filed by a group of Muslim imams who were taken off a US Airways flight in November.” (Dec. 6, Mar. 15, Mar. 22; Audrey Hudson, “Hill bill protects flying public”, Washington Times, Mar. 24). Syndicated columnist and blogger Michelle Malkin has been on top of developments (“The John Doe Manifesto”, National Review Online, Mar. 28; blog posts, Mar. 24, Mar. 27, Mar. 28).
The Minneapolis Star-Tribune has a response from the imams:
The imams’ Manhattan attorney, Omar Mohammedi, said the suit “is directed at the airlines and the airport, not passengers.”If someone has a legitimate security concern, we’re not going after that person,” he said. “Or if someone saw them praying and reported that out of ignorant fear, we aren’t going to target that.
“But if someone lied and made a false report with the intention to discriminate, such as in saying the imams made anti-American comments and talked about Iraq when in fact nothing like that ever happened, we have the right to challenge that,” Mohammedi said.
(Pamela Miller, “Attorney offers aid to defendants in imam suit”, Minneapolis Star-Tribune, Mar. 22). USA Today has editorially weighed in on the passengers’ side: “This legal tactic seems designed to intimidate passengers willing to do exactly what authorities have requested — say something about suspicious activity.” (“Our view on post-9/11 travel: Clerics’ lawsuit threatens security of all passengers”, Mar. 27; opposing view by Arsalan Iftikhar). See also Marc Sheppard, American Thinker, Mar. 27.
P.S. And now AP is on the case (“Imams removed from flight may sue passengers”, AP/MSNBC, Mar. 30), and Sen. Fred Thompson (“Suing for Silence”, National Review Online, Mar. 29). The imams have now amended their complaint to cast a seemingly less capacious net for John Does: Audrey Hudson, “Imams narrow target of ‘Does'”, Washington Times, Mar. 31.
March 23 roundup
- French court acquits satirical weekly that printed Mohammed cartoons (see Feb. 7) [DW]
- Subprime panic: “Does no one remember what it was like to get a mortgage before they were so easily securitized?” [Coyote channeling Tabarrok, Kirkendall and our own Ted]
- Food safety regulators have their eye on Amish bakers at farmers’ markets [AP/Ledger-Enquirer]
- Attorney Harpreet Singh Brar, notorious for mass filings against small business (Jun. 4, 2006, etc.), ordered “inactive” by California bar [Calif. Wage and Hour Law]
- “The litigation was much thicker than the music”, hence the downfall of 60s girl-group The Shangri-Las (Remember, Leader of the Pack) [NY mag, Althouse]
- Our comments section hits the big time [Chicago-Sun Times quotes Richard Nieporent on South Park]
- Special-needs teen brutally murders fellow student in affluent Boston suburb; did school officials keen on “mainstreaming” him downplay signs of trouble? [Globe, more, AP]
- New Mexico is 49th state to ban cockfighting, sport beloved of early American presidents [Walker @ Reason, Zincavage]
- Rudy Giuliani still vividly remembers defending NYC hospital lawsuits [Point of Law]
- “[Plaintiff husband] denied that he had been abducted by aliens, but stated that his [plaintiff] wife had been” [Cernovich]
- Forced marriage: don’t assume it only happens a world away [Dalrymple, Spectator]
- Lawyers stage sham trial aimed at inculpating third party [five years ago on Overlawyered]
“Suit Blames Video Game for N.M. Slayings”
Yes, it’s regular Overlawyered mentionee Jack Thompson (Aug. 17, Jul. 24, Jun. 25, etc.) at it again — how did you guess? This time he wants $600 million from Take-Two Interactive, Sony and other defendants over the rampage by 14-year-old Cody Posey on newsman Sam Donaldson’s New Mexico ranch, which left three members of the youth’s family dead in July 2004. It seems Posey had “obsessively” played the game Grand Theft Auto: Vice City. (AP/Washington Post, Sept. 25)(via KipEsquire). More: Lattman, Sept. 27.
“N.M. Legislators: Bar Owners Need ESP”
Under the terms of a bill proposed in the New Mexico legislature, if a “drinker is caught with a blood alcohol content (BAC) exceeding 0.14, the bar owner will be deemed legally responsible and may lose his license” if the bar had served the drinker within the previous two hours. According to Nobody’s Business, this implies that bar owners in New Mexico who don’t want to break the law may be well advised to develop “paranormal gifts. …they must know if a customer who leaves their establishment intends to drink more over the next two hours — perhaps at a friend’s home.” (Jul. 10; “Proposed liquor law changes draw comments”, AP/Los Alamos Monitor, Jul. 6).