August 16 roundup

by Walter Olson on August 16, 2010

  • Former producer at “Oprah” show — yearning for the simpler life? — takes job at rough blue-collar outfit. One $500K harassment settlement later… [Des Moines Register]
  • “Insurer writing ‘loser pays’ policies to defendants” [LNL]
  • “$1.4 Million Award Reversed due to Attorney’s ‘Inflammatory’ Comments” [DBR]
  • New book examines shaky evidentiary basis of international criminal law convictions [Nancy Combs]
  • Litigation slush funds, cont’d: new Department of Justice rules steer public settlement money to private advocacy groups [York, Examiner]
  • Second Circuit upholds Judge Weinstein’s steps to curb conspiracy to evade protective order in Zyprexa case [Drug and Device Law, Dan Popeo, NYLJ] More from the busy Dr. David Egilman: “Plaintiff’s Expert Files Appeal in ‘Popcorn Lung’ Lawsuit” [On Point News and more] Also: “Being an Expert Expert Doesn’t Make You an Expert” [Zacher, Abnormal Use]
  • “FTC Seeks to Clarify — and Justify — Its Blogger Endorsement Guidelines” [Citizen Media Law]
  • “Winnebago cruise control” and suchlike urban legends are purposely devised and spread by sinister interests, or so claim L.A. Times and Prof. Turley [five years ago on Overlawyered]

{ 1 comment }

1 L Nettles 08.16.10 at 1:16 pm

Here is a 31 Million verdict send back for a new trial in part for improper jury arguments.

http://www.sccourts.org/opinions/displayOpinion.cfm?caseNo=26860

“It is unmistakable that the closing argument relied heavily on inadmissible evidence. In addition, as will be discussed below, much of the prejudice resulting from the improper evidence was merged in closing argument with Branham’s pursuit of punitive damages in requesting that the jury punish Ford for harm to Branham and others. The closing argument invited the jury to base its verdict on passion rather than reason. The closing argument denied Ford a fair trial. “

Comments on this entry are closed.