Chronicling the high cost of our legal system
From the monthly archives:
A small federally funded industry now devotes itself to hectoring and badgering math, engineering and the hard sciences over supposed gender bias, but the evidence to back its contentions is thin [John Tierney, New York Times] Earlier here, here, here, etc.
{ 15 comments }
“A lawyer and not a thief / A marvelous thing to the people” [Steele/Legal Ethics Forum] The name day for St. Yves/Ives, by the way, is May 19, according to this page.
More about legal action on behalf of a character one wouldn’t think would have any reputation left to lose. [Lowering the Bar] Earlier here.
The most overrated law review article in history? Or an instance of useful legal doctrine developed from imperfect origins? [Stewart Baker, Volokh]
{ 1 comment }
“Given recent volatility in BP share price, I’m told that information related to top kill is now considered stock-market sensitive, which means it has to be managed under disclosure rules for the London and N.Y. stock exchanges,” the BP media official said in an e-mail message. “In a nutshell, that means all investors must be provided information on an equal basis. That precludes me from sending you updates as various aspects of the operation unfold.” — today’s New York Times. Readers can correct me if I’m wrong, but I believe securities law itself, and not merely private exchange rules, currently constrains companies’ release of stock-market-sensitive information.
P.S.: Ira Stoll, better informed than I about the background, makes the same point: “I agree with Mr. Carr that this is a problem, but his quarrel should be with the SEC and Reg FD, not with BP.”
{ 1 comment }
{ 4 comments }
“The paper [published this week by the American Psychological Association] is a critique of a rating scale that is widely used in criminal courts to determine whether a person is a psychopath and likely to commit acts of violence. It was accepted for publication in a psychological journal in 2007, but the inventor of the rating scale saw a draft and threatened a lawsuit if it was published, setting in motion a stultifying series of reviews, revisions and legal correspondence.” [Benedict Carey, New York Times]
Roger Parloff at Fortune answers some frequently asked questions. Last week he wrote about the supposed, but largely irrelevant, $75 million “cap,” in actuality, according to one expert, a provision of a law “designed to expand liability.” Earlier here.
P.S. From the WSJ (paywall):
Under all but the most dire situations, BP should have little trouble servicing its debts. The biggest risk to the company is a government-driven collapse, but experts doubt the U.S. government can carry out its harshest threats, such as forcing BP to pay the salaries of workers laid off because of the federal moratorium on deepwater drilling. “I cannot imagine that the U.S. government has anything close to the authority to do that” says Jim Langdon, executive partner at the law firm of Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld.
{ 4 comments }
“…Use Your Own” [Maggie Koerth-Baker, BoingBoing, seen on a hardwood floor sander, with picture]
{ 2 comments }
When drivers say faulty driving instructions caused their accident, should someone else have to pay? [Tom Vanderbilt, Slate] Earlier on the Google Maps pedestrian suit here.
{ 8 comments }
{ 1 comment }
Rick Woldenberg looks at the risk angles, as well as the politics, of the cadmium-in-Shrek-glasses McDonald’s scare.
A Brooklyn school safety officer sued New York City, saying it discriminated against her religious beliefs for her to have to wear a city ID card that she considered possessed and the “sign of the Beast.” A judge ruled in her favor at an earlier stage in the proceedings, but a second judge has now awarded her just $1 damages. [NY Post]
{ 1 comment }
Dallas entrepreneur Phebe Phillips tells in this speech (PDF) why she had to get out of her successful plush animal business:
Then in 2008 and 2009 the U.S. economy tanked … retail dwindled and a new toy regulation was enacted in response to the poor quality and mass quantity oversights by some really big toy companies.
This new law raises the testing price for each product and in some cases, doubles or triples the costs. For some small companies, it can cost one year of total revenue just to meet the requirements of this law. The law is for any product marketed to a child age twelve and under and for any product made anywhere…even here. It has frozen many small and midsize companies leaving the companies that caused the problems in the first place as some of the only companies that can afford to stay in business. Financially, it caused me to temporarily halt my business…I changed!
Via Amend the CPSIA, which had this report on Phillips in December; earlier on CPSIA and stuffed animals here and here.
Consumer Product Safety Commission member Anne Northup has also been blogging about some of the law’s ongoing damaging effects on sellers of dolls, kids’ furniture and apparel imports.
PUBLIC DOMAIN IMAGE from Honor C. Appleton, The Bad Mrs. Ginger (Frederick A. Stokes Co., 1902), courtesy ChildrensLibrary.org.
{ 1 comment }
I have a bit more to say about the “warning label on the U.S. Constitution” story in Diane Macedo’s FoxNews.com report today, which is getting a lot of readership. Original posts here and here (& welcome KTRH, Lars Larson listeners). Update: statement from Wilder Publications courtesy Distaff View of the World.
Speaking of warnings, Bob Dorigo Jones has picked the finalists for his 13th annual Wacky Warning Labels Contest (on a go-cart: “This product moves when used”) and I’ve got a post on that at Cato at Liberty.
{ 5 comments }
{ 1 comment }
How do you know the popular TV show is fiction? Because if a real-life high school glee club in Lima, Ohio were actually basing its performances on contemporary material without employing a small army of rights-clearers and paying heftily in royalties, it could face copyright damage demands approaching a million dollars:
Defenders of modern copyright law will argue Congress has struck “the right balance” between copyright holders’ interests and the public good. They’ll suggest the current law is an appropriate compromise among interest groups. But by claiming the law strikes “the right balance,” what they’re really saying is that the Glee kids deserve to be on the losing side of a lawsuit. Does that sound like the right balance to you?
[Christina Mulligan, Yale Law School Information Society Project via Katherine Mangu-Ward, Reason] More: Legal Blog Watch, A Foolish Consistency.
{ 11 comments }
Doesn’t really impress Kevin Underhill at Lowering the Bar:
His lawyers filed a motion prior to opening statements arguing that [former Gov. Rod] Blagojevich had the right to say the things that he was recorded saying because, far from misusing his office for personal gain, he was just talking politics. Blagojevich had “the right,” the motion argues, “to vigorously debate about different options for appointments and different fundraising strategies.” And because “[t]he marketplace of ideas is critical to Democracy [sic],” the prosecution “violates fundamental free speech.”
I just wonder if “marketplace” was the best metaphor to use in association with Rod Blagojevich.
Let’s see — so, when Blagojevich met with a lobbyist in 2008, mentioned that he was about to announce a $1.8 billion construction project and said “I’ve got Lon going to Construction Executive and asking for $500,000 . . . . I could have made a larger announcement but wanted to see how they perform by the end of the year. If they don’t perform, f— ‘em,” he was simply engaging in vigorous debate about a fundraising strategy. See United States v. Blagojevich, No. 08 CR 888, Government’s Evidentiary Proffer, p. 55 (filed Apr. 14, 2010).
Or, when told that Children’s Memorial Hospital (which was hoping for a rate increase) was not returning calls about political contributions, Blagojevich said “Screw them,” then called the deputy governor, asked “Where are we on the money to Children’s Memorial Hospital? . . . . Hold it up,” that was an even more vigorous debate about fundraising. See id. at p. 62.
{ 6 comments }
Get your copy today! My new book tackles the question of why so many bad ideas come from the law schools. "Cutting-edge commentary, hard-hitting, witty, astute." -- Publisher's Weekly. "Excellent... A fine dissection of these strangely powerful institutions" -- Wall Street Journal.
Individual liberty, free markets, and peace: the world's premier libertarian think tank. Publishes Cato at Liberty, where I blog on contemporary policy issues.