The son of the former mayor had sued over being kicked off the university’s golf team. ["Campus Notes" News & Observer blog, WSJ Law Blog; earlier coverage]
{ 1 comment }
From the monthly archives:
March 2010
“Great-grandmother given an electronic tag and curfew for selling a goldfish to a 14 year-old”, Telegraph:
Joan Higgins, a pet shop owner, was caught selling the fish to the teenager in a ’sting’ operation by council officials. She was then prosecuted in an eight month court process estimated to have cost the taxpayer more than £20,000.
Under new animal welfare laws, passed in 2006, it is it illegal to sell goldfish to under 16s. Offenders can be punished with up to 12 months in prison.
Mrs Higgins, 66, who thought the boy was much older than 14, escaped jail but was instead ordered to wear an electronic tag and given a night time curfew. She was also fined £1,000 by Trafford Magistrates Court. … [Her son] said the punishment she had received would prevent her from attending her weekly bingo sessions as well babysitting her one month-old great grandchild.
{ 14 comments }
Film biz follows RIAA path? “In what may be a sign of things to come, more than 20,000 individual movie torrent downloaders have been sued in the past few weeks in Washington D.C. federal court for copyright infringement. A handful of cases have already settled, and those that haven’t are creating some havoc for major ISPs.” [Eriq Gardner, THR Esq.]
{ 10 comments }
- Funniest string cite ever? Judge Alex Kozinski has a field day [Lowering the Bar]
- Lawyer: panic attack explains why I settled my bias complaint for a mere $350K [ABA Journal]
- Curious EU heritage sign: “plants, wild animals and leprechauns (little people) are protected in this area” [SkyNews]
- “She asked me if she should go back to earning $25,000.” Caught in the poverty trap [Megan Cottrell, Urbanophile]
- Jury rejects claim that formaldehyde emissions from FEMA Katrina trailer caused man’s throat tumor [Courthouse News]
- Update: McDonald’s settles nude-photos-left-on-cellphone case [OnPoint News, earlier]
- Canadian psychiatrist accused of human rights violations in South Africa suppressed public discussion of his past for years by threatening to sue news organizations [Guardian]
- Judge throws out Texas law limiting quick solicitation of accident victims [Houston Chronicle]
{ 3 comments }
As part of a charity effort for the Connecticut bar foundation, Daniel Schwartz has invited Twitter users to summarize a single Supreme Court case of their choice in a single Tweet, that is, in 140 characters or less. Some of the more amusing results:
@gideonstrumpet Gideon v. Wainwright: helping poor people get convicted WITH the assistance of counsel since 1963.
@GoldnI Brown v. Board of Ed: “Hey Eisenhower, just kidding about the conservative thing. Love, Earl Warren.”
@conlawgeek Gonzales v. Raich: “Dude, but I have a valid prescription for… uh… medical… uh… what were we talking about?”
@Popehat Lawrence v. Texas: “….not that there’s anything wrong with that.”
@ThirdTierAmie Buck v. Bell: You’re dumb, your mama’s dumb, even your mama’s mama is dumb! Three generations of imbeciles are enough!
@AdamBonin Pleasant Grove City v Summum: Put up your wacky religious monument in your own damn park, freaks.
@david_m_wagner Wickard v. Filburn: Wheat. Wheat. The Constitution’s dead, they’re talkin’ about wheat.
@coolasmcqueen U.S. v. Nixon: We have the privilege of informing you that you ARE a crook
My own contribution:
@walterolson Bates v. State Bar of Ariz.: OK guys, go ahead and advertise for clients. Might boost our traffic down the road.
[cross-posted from Point of Law]
{ 8 comments }
We know you’re looking for small-scale, locally produced meat, but it’s been marginalized thanks to regulation among other causes:
The state [Vermont] has seven operating slaughterhouses, down from around 25 in the mid-1980s, [state meat inspection official Randy] Quenneville said. One is a state-inspected facility, meaning that meat inspected there cannot be sold over state lines. …
Mr. Quenneville said a number of small, family-owned slaughterhouses started closing when strict federal rules regarding health control went into effect in 1999.
Not entirely unrelatedly, here’s an article on underground restaurants in Boston, a trend that has spread from Portland, Ore.
{ 7 comments }
At first lawyer J. Kendall Few, trying a case against Kia Motors alleging seat belt failure, denied tampering with the seat belt in an exhibit car so as to produce an effect prejudicial to the automaker’s case. “Later he admitted he had moved the seat belt, but said he thought he had returned it to its original position. ‘I’m 70 years old, and I’d been through a fairly hard day. I went down there, and I don’t remember everything as good as I did when I was 25 or 30,’ Few said.” A federal judge said it was a “close call” but declined to levy sanctions, finding “there was no conclusive evidence that Few had acted in bad faith or committed intentional misconduct”. [ABA Journal]
{ 5 comments }
David Post at Volokh Conspiracy sounds the alarm over the many bad provisions in a new intellectual property pact, the “Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement,” arrived at through a “truly outrageous bit of executive branch over-reaching on Hollywood’s behalf.” Margot Kaminski at Balkinization details how the measure if adopted would for the first time criminalize a wide swath of noncommercial personal copying behavior, mandate statutory damages that would grossly over-compensate many rights holders for infringements, and reduce de minimis thresholds under which border officers currently overlook small quantities of infringing material on travelers’ laptops and smartphones. And those are just a few highlights of a long and disturbing list of provisions. Earlier here.
P.S. Much more from Andrew Moshirnia at Citizen Media Law. And at the Mercatus Center’s Surprisingly Free, a podcast with Canadian ACTA critic Michael Geist.
{ 1 comment }
New federal regulations from the Environmental Protection Agency, aimed at curbing exposure to dust that might contain lead paint, will result in federal certification of many building-maintenance specialties and step up pressure against informal unlicensed suppliers of handyman and carpentry services:
On April 22, the Environmental Protection Agency is slated to enact rules requiring EPA certification for contractors working on homes built before lead paint was banned in 1978. The rule, aimed at limiting exposure to lead, applies to carpenters, plumbers, heating and air conditioning workers, window installers and others.
Two-thirds of U.S. homes and apartments (78 million out of 120 million) were built before 1978, says Calli Schmidt of the National Association of Home Builders (NAHB), citing Census Bureau data. She says half of the pre-1978 homes don’t contain lead but the rule, depending on implementation, might apply to all of them.
Making it unlawful to practice home renovation without federal certification will assuredly reduce the supply and raise the cost of renovations, the extent of the shift varying perhaps from one community to another depending on how professionalized the relevant markets already are. One result of shifting the cost curve will be to encourage teardowns of otherwise sound housing stock. Some other properties that remain occupied will simply go without renovations and repairs, with unpredictable (but probably not good) consequences for health and safety. [USA Today via Nick Gillespie, Reason] As for the prospect that the federal government will apply any sort of common-sense appraisal of the actual benefits of spending millions to avoid infinitesimal or nonexistent lead exposures, I’ll believe that when they fix CPSIA. More: WSJ (sub-only)
{ 13 comments }
Regarding “That nice Mr. Smith does not have to pay this personally, does he?“, Australian correspondent Malcolm Park writes:
“One of my favorites regarding the jury’s generosity/magnanimity when dealing with someone else’s money is from Fred Shapiro’s Oxford Dictionary of American Legal Quotations (1993) page 106 quoting Samuel P. Sears, ‘In Defense of the Defense’, 25 Insurance Counsel Journal 428 at 429 (1958):
We have a judge in Boston named Donahue, who is indeed brilliant, but a character. A couple of years ago, a jury case was being tried before him, a personal injury case, and the jury sent a note in to him with a question asking if, even though there was not any liability, could they still give the plaintiff some money. The judge sent for the jury. He said to them, “I have your written question, and I assume from the question that you have found there is no liability.” The foreman said, “That is so, Your Honor.” He said, “All right, sign this slip then.”
After they had signed the slip, which directed a verdict for the defendant, he said, “I will now answer your question. You may retire to the jury room and pass the hat.”
{ 1 comment }
Marc Hodak wonders about the FDA and its sense of urgency.
{ 7 comments }
- “Teen beauty queen portrayed as spoiled brat on ‘Wife Swap’ files $100M lawsuit” [NY Daily News]
- “Viva el cupcake!” NYC parents and kids protest the Bloomberg administration’s anti-bake-sale rules [Philissa Cramer, GothamSchools] Bill in Congress would thrust federal government much more deeply into school food issues [Al Tompkins, Poynter]
- For improved disabled access to online resources, look to technical advance, not regulation [Szoka, City Journal]
- “Ministry of Justice Rolls Out New Measures to Reform U.K. Libel Law” [Legal Week/Law.com] “Success Fees in U.K. Libel Cases to Be Slashed by 90 Percent” [same]
- “They’re overlawyered. They’re poisoned by lawyers.” (Markopolos critique of SEC, cont’d) [Gordon Smith, Conglomerate]
- A sentiment open to doubt: Prof. Freedman contends that lawyers’ ethics are higher than doctors’ [Legal Ethics Forum]
- Quotas for women executives in boardroom and top corporate posts spread in Europe. Maybe someday here too? [NYT "Room for Debate"]
- Yes to better indigent criminal defense, no to a court order taking over the subject [Greenfield]
{ 3 comments }
Lowering the Bar has an update on the case of the British man who said that as a member of the International Church of Jediism, he suffered religious discrimination when asked at a Tesco supermarket to remove his Obi-Wan-like head garment.
{ 11 comments }
Not just anti-free-speech, but extraterritorial as well [Popehat]:
…Joseph Evers, one of the “owners” of Encyclopedia Dramatica, reveals that he got a threatening letter from the Australian Human Rights Commission, which based upon its logo may or may not be controlled by AT&T. The Human Rights Commission announces that it has gotten multiple complaints about Encyclopedia Dramatica’s Aborigine page, and that the page “constitutes racial hatred” and appears to Racial Discrimination Act of 1975 in that it constitutes an act “likely to offend, insult, intimidate or humiliate” another person based on their race. The Human Rights Commission also announces — rather triumphantly, I think — that it does not matter that Encyclopedia Dramatica is hosted and written in the United States, because Australian law, as reflected in Dow Jones v. Gutnik, treats web pages written and hosted elsewhere as if they were published in Australia, subjecting their authors and/or hosts to jurisdiction there.
Australian authorities have compiled a blacklist of sites that internet providers must filter from Australian users’ access, and many sites apparently make the list on the grounds of forbidden opinion content. More on “hate speech” here; also note our recent post on Canada and Ann Coulter, where an anonymous visitor is defending Canada’s speech-penalizing laws.
{ 24 comments }
Legal notice advertisements announce the $35 million giveaway over alleged mismarketing of the Activia and DanActive brands. [New Jersey Lawsuit Reform Alliance] NJLRA’s Ann Marie McDonald:
I eat Dannon yogurt products fairly regularly. I haven’t been dissatisfied yet. It’s difficult to assess whether my body’s defenses have been strengthened by the product itself or the placebo effect. I doubt a $35,000,000 asterisk will make that any clearer. Nevertheless, I’d still be able to participate in this lawsuit, even though I don’t feel deceived and suffered no adverse [effects] from using it.
A very dubious idea — federal legislation aimed at copycat producers who “knock off” fashion and apparel designs — rears its head again. (guest posters Kal Raustiala and Chris Sprigman at N.Y. Times “Freakonomics”, earlier).
{ 5 comments }
