October 15 roundup

• Litigants’ “not about the money” assertions: Mark Obbie has further thoughts on reporters’ uncritical deployment of this cliche, and kind words for our archive of posts on the subject [LawBeat]
• Lawyer on the other side of that much-circulated “I’m sorry” deposition-dispute letter has his say [Markland and Hanley via Turkewitz and Above the Law]
• Local authority in England tells gardener to remove barbed wire from wall surrounding his allotment, thieves might get hurt on it and sue [Never Yet Melted, Steyn/NRO Corner]
• Same-sex marriage in Connecticut through judicial fiat? Jonathan Rauch says no thanks [IGF]
• Lawyers are back suing despite reform of FACTA, the credit-card-receipt “gotcha” law, but insurance might just dry up [Randy Maniloff at Point of Law]
• “Racing to the trough” — auto lenders latest to ask bailout though original TARP rationale of liquidity fix seems remote [Naked Capitalism]
• “To be a green-certified property (pretty important in crunchy Portland) there must be an absolute prohibition on smoking, including outdoor spaces.” [Katherine Mangu-Ward, Reason "Hit and Run"]
• (Failed) claim in trademark case: “the term ‘electric’ is not commonly used by the general public to describe a source of power for watches” [TTAB via Ron Coleman]

Related posts

• October 14 roundup (0)
• Welcome TimesOnline readers (2)
• U.K.: Footballer sues over “negligent” tackle (3)
• U.K.: defending assumption of risk (0)
• U.K. roundup (0)

Tagged as: accolades, assumption of risk, Connecticut, criminals who sue, FACTA, not about the money, premises liability, same-sex marriage, smoking bans, trademark, United Kingdom