Nation’s Restaurant News (via Russell Jackson): “A New Jersey Superior Court judge dismissed a lawsuit Tuesday accusing Denny’s Corp. of perpetrating fraud by not disclosing the amount of sodium in its food. The lawsuit, the first sodium-related case against a restaurant company, was filed this summer by a New Jersey man with help from the Center for Science in the Public Interest, a Washington-based consumer advocacy group.” Earlier here and here. Update/clarification: judge gave leave to amend, so action is expected to continue.
- Easterbrook: “One who misuses litigation to obtain money to which he is not entitled is hardly in a position to insist that the court now proceed to address his legitimate claims, if any there are…. Plaintiffs have behaved like a pack of weasels and can’t expect any part of their tale be believed.” [Ridge Chrysler v. Daimler Chrysler via Decision of the Day]
- Retail stores and their lawyers find sending scare letters with implausible threats of litigation against accused shoplifters mildly profitable. [WSJ]
- Kentucky exploring ways to reform mass-tort litigation in wake of fen-phen scandal. [Mass Tort Prof; Torts Prof; AP/Herald-Dispatch; earlier: Frank @ American]
- After Posner opinion, expert should be looking for other lines of work. [Kirkendall; Emerald Investments v. Allmerica Financial Life Insurance & Annuity]
- Judge reduces jury verdict in Premarin & Prempro case to “only” $58 million. And I still haven’t seen anyone explain why it makes sense for a judge to decide damages awards were “the result of passion and prejudice,” but uphold a liability finding from the same impassioned and prejudiced jury. Wyeth will appeal. [W$J via Burch; AP/Business Week]
- Judge lets lawyers get to private MySpace and Facebook postings. [OnPoint; also Feb. 19]
- Nanny staters’ implausible case for regulating salt. [Sara Wexler @ American; earlier: Nov. 2002]
- Doctor: usually it’s cheaper to pay than to go to court. [GNIF BrainBlogger]
- Trial lawyers in Colorado move to eviscerate non-economic damages cap in malpractice cases [Rocky Mountain News]
- Bonin: don’t regulate free speech on the Internet in the name of “campaign finance” [Philadelphia Inquirer]
- “Executives face greater risks—but investors are no safer.” [City Journal]
- Professors discuss adverse ripple effects from law school affirmative action without mentioning affirmative action. Paging Richard Sander. Note also the absence of “disparate impact” from the discussion. [PrawfsBlawg; Blackprof]
- ATL commenters debate my American piece on Edwards. [Above the Law]
A prominent busybody group filed suit yesterday demanding that food preparers be made to obtain permission from federal regulators before adding salt to food. In its lawsuit against the Food and Drug Administration, the nosy, hectoring Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI) says the savory crystals should be categorized as a regulated food additive; salt is currently, like many other long-used substances, grandfathered into the unregulated “Generally Recognized As Safe” (GRAS) category. (Maggie Fox, “Salt Should Be Regulated Food Additive, Group Says”, Reuters, Feb. 24). For more on CSPI, see Sept. 19, 2003.