Posts Tagged ‘Philadelphia’

Terrell Owens: Now Specter wants in

Sen. Arlen Specter has risen to the level of self-parody and “accused the NFL and the Philadelphia Eagles of treating Terrell Owens unfairly, and might refer the matter to the antitrust subcommittee of the Senate Judiciary Committee.” The AP story quotes a couple of experts as noting that there isn’t an antitrust problem in much more polite terms than I would have. (AP/ESPN, Nov. 29 (hat-tip L.S.)). Owens seems to provoke a lot of silliness: see Nov. 24 and links therein.

Terrell Owens update

An NFL arbitrator has upheld his suspension from the Philadelphia Eagles. The Eagles had not commented much to the press during the controversy, leaving the coverage relatively lopsided. The full opinion is on ESPN.com, and adds much detail showing the decision to be considerably more justified than press coverage had indicated—a worthy reminder the next time your local news gives a three-minute segment over to a plaintiff’s attorney’s unrebutted claim against a corporate defendant. Earlier Owens coverage: Nov. 14 and Jan. 27.

Ralph Nader and the Philadelphia Eagles

Ralph Nader is arguing that the Philadelphia Eagles’ decision to suspend star wide receiver Terrell Owens (for, inter alia, publicly criticizing the team and quarterback, shouting at coaches, a physical altercation with a teammate, and then failing to apologize) is consumer fraud because season-ticket holders had an expectation that Owens would play for the team, which barely lost the Super Bowl last year, and was an early favorite this year. (But what about all those New York Times subscribers who expected to read Judy Miller?) The suggestion rises to self-parody, though it exhibits the absurdity of modern consumer fraud law in that it isn’t crazier than suits that actually succeed. But I’m somewhat sanguine about Nader’s latest foray; if he’s tilting at the windmill of trying to make football coaching decisions litigable (Can a fan sue the Washington special teams coach for costing the team the game against Tampa Bay because it reduced the chance the team would go to the Super Bowl and the resale value of his season tickets?), it means he’s not spending time trying to wreck more important industries.

(Yes, I know that one shouldn’t blame the Washington special teams coach for losing the game. But it would be actionable under the Nader regime if a lawyer can find a fan who purchased tickets after hearing coaches say they were trying to avoid senseless penalties this season.)

Around the blogs

Philadelphia lawyer/blogger “Eh Nonymous”, who has been reading this site since law school without necessarily agreeing, now offers some more than generous comments about us (Aug. 17). Nobody’s Business has a picture of an overprotective warning sign which we can only assume is a parody and which in any case is funny (Aug. 15). Dozens of blogs, including Gypsy Speaks and Rev. Marge, are onto the sequel of the Kelo v. New London eminent-domain case: the city of New London, having won its case against the homeowners, now is charging them back rent for the five years it took to kick them out of their homes, not unlike the foreman in the old labor song who, after an on-the-job explosion, docked the worker for the time he spent up in the sky. And Jason Kuznicki at Positive Liberty (Aug. 15) explores the question of “Why the [New York] Times likes Kelo so much”. More: Gunner at No Quarters has identified (Aug. 17) a provision in Connecticut law that might prove unexpectedly helpful to the Kelo “tenants”.

N.J. court chills job references

Management-side lawyers are predicting a further drying up of reference-giving in response to a New Jersey appellate court’s ruling “appl[ying] the tort of negligent misrepresentation to a situation where an employer allegedly gave false information in an employment reference.” Marsha Singer said she was fired after a manager called her previous employer and was given an incorrect job title for the post she had held there; a court dismissed her claims for defamation and wrongful interference but allowed the negligent misrepresentation claim to go forward. Richard J. Reibstein of the New York office of Philadelphia’s Wolf, Block, Schorr and Solis-Cohen called the ruling a “dramatic shift in the law of post-employment references everywhere” and said it would influence employers outside the Garden State. (Dee McAree, “Ruling Could Lead to Restrictions on References”, National Law Journal, Aug. 5). For more on the chill on reference-giving, see Aug. 7, 2003; as it happens, New Jersey is a state that figured prominently in the widely noted case of alleged killer nurse Charles Cullen (Dec. 18, 2003; Jan. 29, Mar. 3 and Mar. 30, 2004), in which litigation-shy hospitals did not give each other frank warnings of their doubts about Cullen.

Streamlined Procedures Act of 2005

With excited editorials in the New York Times and Washington Post announcing that a bill before the Senate Judiciary Committee will “gut the legal means by which prisoners prove their innocence,” it’s worth asking the following trivia question:

Q. Under the Streamlined Procedures Act of 2005, what is the minimum number of levels of judicial review a criminal defendant sentenced to death will have?

Read On…

Philly judges bearing checks

Just business as usual in Philadelphia:

Candidates for judge paraded before a gaggle of ward leaders assembled by consultant Pete Truman last Friday at the Airport Sheraton.

They entered one at a time. Each candidate handed each ward leader an envelope. Each envelope contained a check, $1,000 or $2,000, depending on the size of the ward.

If the ward leader planned to support the candidate in Tuesday’s Democratic primary, the check was accepted. If not, it was returned.

(Gar Joseph, “Like sheep being led to slaughter”, Philadelphia Daily News, May 13). And various Philadelphia political figures convicted of crimes have emerged after serving their sentences as practitioners of a largely unregulated trade, serving as campaign consultants to judges (Tom Ferrick Jr., “Judicial process isn’t all negative”, Philadelphia Inquirer, May 13).

Why object to HIPAA?

Why get annoyed at the federal medical privacy law (discussed in this space Mar. 16, Feb. 5, 2004, etc.)?

*Because it means your patients at the VA hospital often have no names on their doors? (MedRants, Mar. 31);

* Because it keeps you from talking about a patient’s condition when members of his extended family call to express concern? (Virginia A. Smith and Dawn Fallik, “Questions remain two years after medical privacy act”, Jewish World Review, Mar. 5);

* Because it brings out the worst in editorial writers at papers like the Philadelphia Inquirer? (Jeff Drummond’s HIPAA blog, Mar. 23).

And: MedRants has more (May 2).

“Hand you their severed heads”

Now here’s a post I wish I’d written: John Steele of the excellent new Legal Ethics Forum blog contrasts the attitude toward lawyers’ advertising of the highly dignified Henry S. Drinker of Philadelphia, author of the 1950s standard textbook Legal Ethics, with that of Jim “The Hammer” Shapiro, who starred in many manic TV ads to promote his ethically troubled and now-defunct Rochester personal injury practice (see Jun. 17-18, 2002, Dec. 5, 2003, and May 24, 2004). One big difference: Drinker would probably never have promised TV viewers to “rip out the hearts of [the defendants]” and “hand you their severed heads.” (Feb. 22, linking to this page on Rochester TV ads).