- Dixon v. Ford Motor Company: “The Best Causation Opinion of 2012″ [David Oliver] “Any exposure” causation: “Pennsylvania Supreme Court delivers significant asbestos ruling” [Point of Law]
- Maryland high court may consider pro-plaintiff shift from contributory negligence to comparative fault [Sean Wajert]
- In last-minute ploy, Albany lawmakers extend time limits for suing local governments [Torch via PoL, Times-Union]
- Mental diagnoses: what to do when courtroom experts armed with DSM-5 shoot from the hip [Jim Dedman, Abnormal Use]
- California appeals court, legislature decline to go along with trial lawyers’ crusade against Concepcion and class arbitration waivers [WLF, CL&P]
- Critics challenge legality of Louisiana AG’s use of contingency lawyers [Melissa Landry, Hayride]
- To curb client solicitation, NJ mulls withholding crash reports from noninterested parties for 90 days [NJLRA]
Chronicling the high cost of our legal system
Cato Institute
Individual liberty, free markets, and peace: the world's premier libertarian think tank. Publishes Cato at Liberty, where I blog on contemporary policy issues.
Schools for Misrule
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.
{ 1 comment }
I suppose comparative fault is more “pro-plaintiff” than contributory negligence (where if the plaintiff is just 1 percent liable, he recovers nothing), but a partner told me that juries ignore plaintiff negligence in cases where they want the plaintiff to win.
Comments on this entry are closed.