February 12 roundup

by Walter Olson on February 12, 2007

  • Divorcing Brooklyn couple has put up sheetrock wall dividing house into his and hers [L.A. Times, AP/Newsday]

  • Boston Herald appeals $2 million libel award to Judge Ernest Murphy, whom the paper had portrayed as soft on criminals (earlier: Dec. 8 and Dec. 23, 2005) [Globe via Romenesko]

  • Updating Jul. 8 story: Georgia man admits he put poison in his kids’ soup in hopes of getting money from Campbell Soup Co. [AP/AccessNorthGeorgia]

  • Witness talks back to lawyer at deposition [YouTube via Bainbridge, %&*#)!* language]

  • Prominent UK business figure says overprotective schools producing generation of “cotton wool kids” [Telegraph]

  • State agents swoop down on Montana antique store and seize roulette wheel from 1880s among other “unlicensed gambling equipment” [AP/The Missoulian]

  • “You, gentlemen, are no barristers. You are just two litigators. On Long Island.” [Lat and commenter]

  • Some Dutch municipalities exclude dads from town-sponsored kids’ playgroups, so as not to offend devout Muslim moms [Crooked Timber]

  • As mayor, Rudy Giuliani didn’t hesitate to stand up to the greens when he thought they were wrong [Berlau @ CEI]

  • Australia: funeral homes, fearing back injury claims, now discouraging the tradition of family members and friends being pallbearers [Sydney Morning Herald]

  • Asserting 200-year-old defect in title, Philly’s Cozen & O’Connor represents Indian tribe in failed lawsuit laying claim to land under Binney & Smith Crayola factory [three years ago on Overlawyered]

{ 2 comments }

1 nevins 02.12.07 at 1:15 pm

The roulette wheel story raises more interesting possibilities. Medical devices are regulated by the FDA and bear a notice that they are only ‘for sale or use on the order of a physician only’. So all that antique medical gear in museums and in private hands is similarly at risk from aggressive policing. That and my collection of equipment includes mercury filled blood pressure devices, so the EPA can join the raid with moon suits.

2 Colin 02.15.07 at 5:20 am

Re-reading the Indian land case, I note that the original treaty was based in English law. Doesn’t that open up the principle of “squatters rights” to the later settlers?
It’s “old” English law so probablt relevant!

Comments on this entry are closed.