- Two topics of recent interest on the site — cremation and service monkeys — together in one post [The Urn Garden]
- Please don’t tell us an aggressive stance by music copyright holders is going to kill Pandora radio, one of the bright stars of the Internet [WaPo, more]
- “Citizens in Chains: The High Cost of Prisoner Lawsuits to California Taxpayers” [CALA, PDF]
- Navajo plaintiffs: spraying artificial snow on our sacred mountain is spiritually injurious [Volokh]
- Remember those anti-poverty non-profit groups that were going to represent the culmination of John Edwards’ life work, aside from running for you-know-what? Him neither [Silverstein, Harper's via Folo]
- Toxic tort class action in Saudi Arabia proves unsuccessful [Arab News]
- Fending off patent trolls has been expensive for high-tech Massachusetts firm Cognex [NLJ]
- Arizona law professor’s creative denials in paternity suit have furnished faculty-lounge chuckles for years [Caron/TaxProf, Jack J. Rappeport]
- New at Point of Law: big ruckus over proposal to compel accounting projections of lawsuit exposure; guestblogger Peggy Little on Connecticut vs. Countrywide, the ABA in judicial selection and more; cy pres litigation slush funds assailed as constitutionally dubious; Trial Lawyers Inc. series tackles the state of Ohio; MBIA mulls suing hedge fund that’s sniped at its stock; more on med-mal “loss of a chance”; and much more.
{ 3 trackbacks }
{ 1 comment… read it below or add one }
The loss of a chance doctrine, taken to its logical extreme is basically an unfunded life insurance policy. If something different had been done, the result might always have been different. And to your point, a slight expansion: suppose the gastric cancer had been diagnosed at the earliest opportunity, but he died during surgery, then who pays who?