From the United Kingdom: “Foreign squatters given legal aid to fight eviction from £1 million house… as its British owner has to represent himself in court” [Daily Mail, back in February]
{ 8 comments }
From the monthly archives:
July 2011
“Under the proposed rule change [at the Iowa Supreme Court], lawyers suspended for stealing from clients, drug and alcohol problems, and neglecting important cases could hide what they did and resume practice without clients ever knowing what ethical violations they committed.” [Des Moines Register, more]
{ 8 comments }
A Kentucky judge’s colorfully worded order is grist for my latest post at Cato.
{ 2 comments }
- Don’t: “Lawyer Disbarred for Verbal Aggression to Pay $9.8M Fine for Hiding Cash Overseas” [Weiss, ABA Journal]
- Loser-pays might help: “Dropped malpractice lawsuits cost legal system time and money” [Liz Kowalczyk, Boston Globe]
- “Kim Kardashian and the Problem With ‘Celebrity Likeness’ Lawsuits” [Atlantic Wire]
- Kim Strassel on the Franken-spun Jamie Leigh Jones case [WSJ]
- Peggy Little interviews Prof. Lester Brickman (Lawyer Barons) on new Federalist Society podcast;
- Worse than Wisconsin? “Weaponizing” recusal at the Michigan Supreme Court [Jeff Hadden, Detroit News]
- New York legislature requires warning labels for sippy cups [NYDN]
{ 5 comments }
My Cato colleague John Samples detects a perhaps intended consequence of the imposition of regulations that stifle political speech other than that conveyed by the institutional press. More: Paul Sherman, Make No Law (Institute for Justice blog).
Mitchell Rubinstein at Adjunct Law Prof is distrustful of a lawyers-on-tap service.
{ 3 comments }
Better lock ‘em up? A Florida appeals court has reinstated a lawsuit against the city of Boca Raton over its police department’s decision to release from police custody a highly intoxicated 24-year-old, Christopher Milanese, who then walked onto railroad tracks and was fatally struck by a train. [South Florida Sun-Sentinel; opinion courtesy Leagle]
{ 6 comments }
This week has brought one nudge forward and one push back for the paternalistic “food policy” crowd, or so I argue in a new opinion piece for the New York Daily News (& welcome Instapundit/Glenn Reynolds readers, Center for Consumer Freedom “Quote of the Week“).
{ 4 comments }
The Lawsuit Abuse Reduction Act (LARA), versions of which have been discussed in this space for years, would reverse the 1993 gutting of Rule 11, the federal rule providing sanctions for baseless lawsuits, and would thus establish that lawyers, like other professionals, should expect to be responsible for compensating those they injure by negligence or worse. Early this month LARA won the approval of the House Judiciary Committee, but is unlikely to prevail (this term, at least) in the more Litigation-Lobby-friendly Senate. [Stier, ShopFloor; earlier here, etc.]
{ 1 comment }
A brief history of auto-litigation [John G. Browning, Southeast Texas Record]
{ 3 comments }
- Wild hypotheticals were grist for complaint: “Widener law professor cleared of harassment charges” [NLJ, earlier here, here, here]
- Ninth Circuit: Facebook didn’t breach user’s right to accommodation of mental disability [Volokh]
- House Judiciary hearing on litigation and economic prosperity [Wajert]
- “University of Michigan to stop worrying about lawsuits, start releasing orphan works” [Cory Doctorow, BoingBoing]
- PBS airs “The Story Behind Wacky Warning Labels” [Bob Dorigo Jones]
- Fifth Circuit “candy cane” religion-in-schools case controversial among conservatives [David Upham, NR Bench Memos]
- Great moments in public records law [Cleveland Plain Dealer, earlier related]
{ 4 comments }
My new post at Cato at Liberty celebrates investigative journalist Carla Main’s substantial victory at a Texas appeals court against a Dallas developer who didn’t like what she’d written about him in her critique of eminent domain, Bulldozed. Ted at Point of Law rounds up more links and reactions and points out that Texas is fortunate to have a relatively strong “anti-SLAPP” law protecting those who speak out on public issues from intimidation through litigation.
Unfortunately, as Ted writes, “there are dozens of other states where those who criticize the rich face tremendous risk of meritless libel suits to shut down their free speech rights.” For example, to its shame, the state of Pennsylvania has a desperately weak anti-SLAPP law which per Harvard’s Citizen Media Law Project “only applies to those petitioning the government over environmental issues.” It’s past time for lawmakers in Harrisburg and other state capitols to take needed legislative action to protect free speech from the silencing threat of litigation.
P.S. Jacob Sullum has this to say:
In our system of justice, rich people with thin skins don’t need any evidence to drag their critics into an expensive, time-consuming, anxiety-provoking legal process that lasts for years. For any journalist who has ever wondered whether he could be sued over something he wrote that reflected badly on someone (which some of us do several times a day), the answer is yes: You can be sued over anything. The suit may not be legally successful, but if the plaintiff’s goal is to punish you for the offense you caused him and make you (and everyone else) think twice before writing about him again, he wins whether or not he ultimately can prevail in court.
How very true.
“Daniel Schuler, whose wife, Diane Schuler, killed herself and seven others in a wrong-way crash on the Taconic State Parkway is suing the state and his brother-in-law, whose three daughters were victims. Daniel Schuler filed a lawsuit Monday against the state in the New York Court of Claims, arguing that the highway was poorly designed and lacked proper signs.” [White Plains, N.Y. Journal-News] More on the catastrophic crash, which is the subject of a new HBO documentary by Liz Garbus: Bloomberg.
{ 13 comments }
Kellogg is paying several million dollars to settle a class action lawsuit over the marketing of Rice Krispies; according to Ted Frank, the attorneys are asking for $1.3 million while their client class is getting less than that. [Point of Law, more]
Illinois: “The daughter of a St. Clair County man killed while crossing a DuQuoin street in his wheelchair is suing the makers of the wheelchair and the driver of the car that allegedly hit him. … [Candess] Higgerson claims the wheelchair, made by Invacare and sold by The Scooter Store, was defective because it was not equipped with flags or other devices to make it visible to motorists.” [Madison County Record]
{ 7 comments }
- Murder victim’s family sues Schwarzenegger for commuting sentence [KTXL]
- Easter egg in Dodd-Frank: Lawmaker’s pet “conflict minerals” proposal, to be enforced by SEC [Protess] More on costs to automakers and others: WLF, Carter Wood, more. Further: Bader.
- Push is on again for fashion design copyright protection [NYT, earlier] Another skeptical view of bill [Katy Tasker, Public Knowledge]
- Charges dropped against woman who videotaped cops from her front yard [Rochester D&C]
- “Mom Charged with ‘Child Endangerment’ When Tot Wanders Off” [Free-Range Kids]
- Live off the land? Better not try that in rural L.A. County [Cavanaugh]
- Does the U.S. maintain diplomatic relations with this strange realm of “Gould, Arkansas”? [Volokh, Underhill/Forbes]
{ 4 comments }
Great WSJ article on the unending proliferation of federal crimes, with appearances by a family that ran into a law making it a felony to dig for arrowheads on federal land, Bobby Unser and his snowmobile-astray ordeal, and a man effectively ruined by the $860,000+ cost of successfully defending himself against a federal charge of violating Russian hunting regulations.
“Most people think criminal law is for bad people,” says Timothy Lynch of Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank. People don’t realize “they’re one misstep away from the nightmare of a federal indictment.”
More: from Tim Lynch, and (via PoL) Josh Blackman, William Anderson/Regulation mag.
{ 13 comments }
AP: “Nearly every national [retail] chain is under legal attack in California for failing to provide ’suitable seating’ for cashiers and other employees who are expected to spend most of their work day on their feet.” For more on recent plaintiff victories under California’s distinctive bounty-hunting labor law, see this April link.
{ 2 comments }
