From the monthly archives:

January 2010

Better uses for the $2,000

by Walter Olson on January 31, 2010

On Martha’s Vineyard, the town of Chilmark, Mass. would rather not spend $2,000 per election cycle on federally mandated technology to help its one visually impaired voter. In the past the town has offered voters with poor or no eyesight a range of less costly choices including large print ballots and their choice of a person to read the ballot to them. [Megan Dooley, Vineyard Gazette via Ira Stoll, Future of Capitalism]

{ 4 comments }

Subsidies are better for the Metra commuter rail line than for the city subways, which carry a more heavily minority ridership, says the class-action lawsuit against the State of Illinois, the RTA and the Metra. [Jennifer Fernicola, ChicagoNow]

{ 2 comments }

January 30 roundup

by Walter Olson on January 30, 2010

  • Attention journalists: a trademark opposition and a trademark lawsuit are two different things [Legal Satyricon]
  • I explain (slightly rudely) why I think the Citizens United decision will probably help the Dems this cycle [National Journal blogger poll] Plus: no big effect on campaigns? [Ann Althouse] And it’s not as if Chuck Schumer has made up his mind or anything: he’s titled his hearing on Citizens United next week “Corporate America vs. the Voter” [PoL, yet more here and here]
  • Olson and Boies should realize these are not the days of the Warren Court [Dale Carpenter, Independent Gay Forum]
  • Motorists beware Tenaha, Texas: the legal sequel [WSJ Law Blog, earlier here, etc.]
  • “Detroit Lawyer Fined For Chasing Buffalo Air Crash Victims” [Turkewitz]
  • Symbolic venue? Administration chooses to unveil new press-lenders-to-serve-minorities campaign at Jesse Jackson event [N.Y.Times]
  • Remembering pinball prohibition [Popular Mechanics back in August, Radley Balko]
  • Judge cuts “shocking”, “monstrous” $2 million award to $54,000 in Jammie Thomas-Rasset music-download suit [AmLaw Litigation Daily, earlier] Naughty librarians: “Offline Book ‘Lending’ Costs US Publishers Nearly $1 Trillion” [Eric Hellman]

{ 4 comments }

Whether or not these are the very creepiest, Cracked has found some instances where law firms might want to rethink the artwork or slogans on their sites. Not included, mercifully, is the Texas law firm that yanked several tasteless stock photos from its website last year after setting off a blogosphere furor.

{ 3 comments }

Unauthorized use of “Who Dat?” and a fleur-de-lis. [Peter Finney, Times-Picayune/NOLA] More: and a cartoon.

{ 10 comments }

Stossel on the food police

by Walter Olson on January 29, 2010


Last night’s show.

{ 3 comments }

CPSIA and the needle arts

by Walter Olson on January 29, 2010

Overlooked from a couple of months back:

The National NeedleArts Association (TNNA) recently sent a letter to members about how the U.S. Consumer Protection Safety Improvement Act (CPSIA) of October 2009 directly affects how the needlework and crafts industries sell their goods, particularly to children. LuxKnittingBook

“We cannot suddenly say that our products are ‘not for use by children 12 and under’ and still try to teach children to knit, crochet, needlepoint and cross stitch,” states the letter, which was sent by TNNA’s five-member CPSIA committee. “We can’t say children 12 and under are only allowed to use certain tools but not others and still expect them to take needlearts seriously. We must involve ourselves and our businesses in the effort to amend this poorly written, misguided legislation and keep it from destroying our businesses.”

The CPSC has promulgated exemptions for simple textiles and some other materials, which has certainly been better than nothing, but many other innocuous tools and materials used in needle crafting must be either kept off limits to younger crafters or put through onerous testing regimens. [Positive Yarn]

{ 3 comments }

Massachusetts’s highest court thought it a bit much that fees and costs would eat up $800,000 from an estate valued at $1.2 million, or two-thirds of the value at stake. [Robert Ambrogi, Legal Blog Watch; Above the Law]

Incidentally, Robert Ambrogi is hanging up his keyboard after an impressive four-year tenure at Law.com’s Legal Blog Watch, but he’ll continue to maintain his other sites. He has kind words for this site as one to “follow religiously”, too.

{ 2 comments }

A boost from Canada for compulsive-gambling litigation: “Quebec’s lottery commission confirmed Thursday that it has reached a tentative multimillion-dollar agreement to compensate thousands of addicted gamblers, in a case with national implications. … Similar lawsuits are underway in Ontario, Nova Scotia and Newfoundland-Labrador.” [Canadian Press, CBC, CTV, earlier here and here]

Fictional injunctive relief

by Ted Frank on January 28, 2010

A thought on Apple’s iPad

by Walter Olson on January 28, 2010

If, as Tyler Cowen suggests, the key market objective of the iPad is to obtain significant university adoption as a replacement for the paper textbook, one wonders how Apple’s lawyers are planning to handle the inevitable litigation from disabled-rights advocates.

{ 5 comments }

“One major problem with Xbox Live Arcade, Microsoft’s downloadable game service, is that you must deal in ‘Microsoft Points,’ and they come in increments that usually cost more than the price of a game alone. A lawyer has now filed a class-action lawsuit against Microsoft for this practice.” [PC World] Update: not quite as reported?

{ 5 comments }

“U.S. District Judge Joseph Goodwin plans to punish lawyers who filed worthless claims against Mylan Pharmaceuticals and Actavis Totowa.” Defense lawyers spent more than $100,000 establishing that some plaintiffs who claimed injury from the heart medication had other causes of death listed on their death certificate, and at least one lawyer admitted that his client had never used the drug. [Korris, WV Record; cross-posted from Point of Law; typo now fixed]

{ 4 comments }

In his State of the Union message, President Obama claimed the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Citizens United would “open the floodgates” for foreign companies to “spend without limit in our elections.” Justice Samuel Alito could be seen mouthing words and in particular, per Gerard Magliocca, the phrase “That’s not true”. For why he might have reacted that way, see Politifact “Truth-o-Meter”.

More from Randy Barnett at Politico:

In the history of the State of the Union has any President ever called out the Supreme Court by name, and egged on the Congress to jeer a Supreme Court decision, while the Justices were seated politely before him surrounded by hundreds Congressmen? To call upon the Congress to countermand (somehow) by statute a constitutional decision, indeed a decision applying the First Amendment? What can this possibly accomplish besides alienating Justice Kennedy who wrote the opinion being attacked. Contrary to what we heard during the last administration, the Court may certainly be the object of presidential criticism without posing any threat to its independence. But this was a truly shocking lack of decorum and disrespect towards the Supreme Court for which an apology is in order. A new tone indeed.

The President also made an erroneous reference to “reversing a century of law”, which Linda Greenhouse corrects at the New York Times “Opinionator” blog.

And: Tony Mauro/NLJ, Ann Althouse. Althouse also notes that there’s a lesson for Citizen United critics in the ways Alito’s few seconds of silent protest upstaged the President: “It’s not how much or how loud you speak that counts, is it?” And Howard Wasserman at Prawfsblawg rounds up reactions on both sides from the perspective of a “somewhat-rare Democrat and Obama supporter who believes Citizens United was correctly decided.” And did the speech as delivered tone down rhetoric about Citizens United that had been distributed in printed versions?

{ 21 comments }

January 27 roundup

by Walter Olson on January 27, 2010

{ 7 comments }

According to Simon Bucks at Sky News, “the crossword editor is planning to leave a gap when he publishes the puzzle’s answers, with a note blaming the omission on legal considerations.”

Teresa Fuller says her 15-year-old son was arrested 20 times for physically abusing her, and that she suffered concussions and other injuries. “Because she’s the boy’s only legal guardian, she is now responsible for his legal bills and court costs. She said because her total wages fall just above the poverty level, her son didn’t qualify for a public defender or an appointed attorney.” More bad news from her from the county attorney’s office: “Fuller does not qualify for a protective order against her son because the only person who can be held responsible for abiding by the order is the son’s parent or legal guardian.” [El Paso Times via ABA Journal]

Slightly related update: Hans Bader writes to say that the Virginia proposal putting parents on the financial hook for support of children up to age 23 attending college has been stricken from the House docket, probably dooming its chances in this session. See Dave Briggman, Richmond Sunlight.

{ 4 comments }

Confetti on a nightclub stage, a wrestler hurt getting out of the ring, and of course the celebrated dolphin-splash suit [Jennifer Fernicola, Chicago Now]