Fix the incentives that underlie the system’s pervasive failures, argues the journalist who’s exposed crime-lab scandals and expert unreliability in a series of widely discussed articles. [Reason]
{ 1 comment }
From the monthly archives:
March 2011
Mark Perry revisits an interest-group-driven feature of the not too distant legal past [Carpe Diem]
A competitor drug company warns “compounding” pharmacies of “FDA action” if they persist in any such mischief [L.A. Times]
{ 12 comments }
A town councilor faces a £3,000 libel payout for not tweeting more Caerphilly. [BBC]
“Jurors deliberated a little more than an hour before finding that the Royals were not liable for injuries suffered by a Kansas man when he was hit in the eye by a foil-wrapped hot dog at a game in September 2009.” [Kansas City Star via Lowering the Bar, earlier]
Pending further disciplinary action, the State Bar of California suspended the right to practice of Michael Pines, whose exploits had garnered considerable press attention [Amanda Bronstad, NLJ; earlier here and here]
I’ve got a new post up at Cato at Liberty on the politics of not-really-deregulation under the ADA, as new federal rules take effect on service animals. Earlier here, etc.
{ 3 comments }
- “A conversation with class action objector Ted Frank” [American Lawyer]
- Reviews of new Lester Brickman book Lawyer Barons [Dan Fisher/Forbes, Russell Jackson] Plus: interview at TortsProf; comments from Columbia legal ethicist William Simon [Legal Ethics Forum]
- “Collective Bargaining for States But Not for Uncle Sam” [Adler] Examples of how Wisconsin public-sector unionism has worked in practice [Perry] Wisconsin cop union: nice business you got there, shame if anything were to happen to it [Sykes, WTMJ] “Union ‘rights’ that aren’t” [Jeff Jacoby, Boston Globe]
- “Minnesota House Considering Significant Consumer Class Action Reform Measures” [Karlsgodt]
- 10,000 lawyers at DoD? Rumsfeld complains military overlawyered [Althouse via Instapundit]
- “Are Meritless Claims More Prevalent in Copyright?” [Boyden, Prawfs]
- Claim: availability of punitive damages reduces rate of truck accidents. Really? [Curt Cutting]
- Now with improved federalism: “The Return of the Lawsuit Abuse Reduction Act” [Carter Wood, more, earlier here].
{ 1 comment }
From commenter Bill Poser in the Starbucks tip jar thread:
Some years ago here in British Columbia a guy filled up his car and then drove off without paying. The attendant ran after him, grabbed the door handle, got his hand stuck, and was dragged to death. This led to a successful campaign to require prepayment at gas stations, which is very inconvenient if you aren’t able to use a credit card or debit card at the pump. “Gas and dash” incidents may have been frequent enough to justify this, but that wasn’t the argument. The argument was that this measure was necessary for the safety of the attendants. Of course, all that is really required for the safety of the attendants is for them not to go running after and grabbing onto fleeing vehicles. The attendant’s death was tragic, but it was a freak accident triggered by the attendant’s brave but foolish attempt to prevent the theft of a rather modest amount of money.
Canada.com has a further report on the “B.C. WorkSafe” regulation.
{ 14 comments }
“A Manhattan mom is suing a $19,000-a-year preschool, claiming it jeopardized her daughter’s chances of getting into an elite private school because she had to slum with younger kids.” [NY Daily News]
{ 14 comments }
A survey by Tampa’s ABC Action News confirms a point often made by Ted in this space: “The Liebeck case did little, if anything, to alter the manner in which fast food restaurants serve coffee.” [Nick Farr, Abnormal Use]
{ 6 comments }
New York chief judge Jonathan Lippman floats a highly dubious idea that would build toward that even more dubious program of full employment for lawyers known as Civil Gideon. [NY Times, Alkon]
{ 8 comments }
“Companies with more than 100 workers will face spot checks and mandatory reporting on the numbers of women they employ and their position under tough new measures aimed at boosting gender equality in the workplace.” [The Australian]
Plus, related: Case against UK quotas for women on corporate boards [Bainbridge]
- A San Francisco cosmetic surgeon sues her online critics — in Virginia? [Paul Alan Levy, CL&P]
- SCOTUS ruling in “cat’s-paw” case could gut summary judgment in many bias suits [Hyman]
- Cuomo spokesman’s smart retort to Litigation Lobby attack on Medicaid reform panel [LoHud.com]
- “Tennessee Cops Posed as a Defense Attorney To Get Suspect To Incriminate Himself” [Reason]
- “Illinois golfer not liable for head shot” [Lowering the Bar]
- Trade friction mounts due to anti-India provisions in Zadroga (9/11 recovery workers) compensation bill [PoL]
- Is a tax-funded federal nonprofit entity funneling money to environmental suits against the government? [Ron Arnold, Examiner]
- FCRA class action deemed “lawsuit abuse problem in a nutshell” [Examiner editorial]
- “Fatherhood by Conscription: Nonconsensual Insemination & the Duty of Child Support” [Michael Higdon, SSRN via Instapundit]
{ 4 comments }
I’ve got an op-ed in today’s New York Post. It begins:
For the service goat, assistance monkey and emotional-support iguana, it could be the end of an era. Under new federal rules taking effect Tuesday, the Americans with Disabilities Act will no longer compel shops, restaurants and other businesses to accommodate a menagerie of supposed service animals brought in by the public. Only dogs and some miniature horses will qualify. Moreover, dogs will qualify as service animals only if they’ve been individually trained to assist with a disabled human’s needs.
“The provision of emotional support, well-being, comfort or companionship do not constitute work or tasks for the purposes of this new definition.” And they’ll need to be on-leash unless their work requires otherwise.
Finally. You’d think the Obama administration had, in a fit of common sense, for once chosen to heed a public outcry about zany regulations-gone-mad.
But as usual, the politics are more complicated than that. …
Read the whole thing here. Relatedly, Kevin at Lowering the Bar has some free advice for persons with service monkeys, namely that their allegations of service-animal status are more likely to win favor if they don’t dress up four of the little guys in pirate costumes on Bourbon St. in New Orleans’ French Quarter. And from Olympia, Wash.’s KPTV: “Man with service snake lobbies against bill.”
{ 13 comments }
We can’t really add much to the month’s most over-publicized story, which has now graduated to allegations of disability discrimination and California labor code violations as well as contract breach [NLJ, ABA Journal], but we can refer you to the analysis of Jon Hyman, Daniel Schwartz, Christine Hurt, and David Boaz.
{ 2 comments }
Daniel MacArthur (Wired) and Razib Khan (Discover Blogs) question paternalism at the FDA.
{ 2 comments }
A thrift store owner explains why. [Rick Woldenberg] More: Timothy Carney, Examiner.
{ 3 comments }
