May 15 roundup

by Walter Olson on May 15, 2014

  • “Sign Installer Cited for Violating Rule on the Sign He Was Installing” [Lowering the Bar, Santa Barbara]
  • YouTube yanks exhibit from public court case as terms-of-service violation. How’d that happen? [Scott Greenfield on controversy arising from doctor's lawsuit against legal blogger Eric Turkewitz]
  • Philadelphia narcotics police scandal (earlier) has an alleged-sex-grab angle; also, given the presence of compelling video clips, shouldn’t the story be breaking out to national cable news by now? [Will Bunch, Philadelphia Daily News; Barbara Laker and Wendy Ruderman, PDN 2009 Pulitzer series, on Dagma Rodriguez, Lady Gonzalez and "Naomi" cases]
  • The most dynamic part of the economy? Its endangered “permissionless” sector [Cochrane] Call it subregulatory guidance, or call it sneaky regulation by agencies, but either way it can evade White House regulatory review, notice and comment, etc. [Wayne Crews, CEI "Open Market"]
  • What’s Chinese for “Kafkaesque”? Dispute resolution in Sino-American contracts [Dan Harris, Above the Law]
  • In another win for Ted Frank’s Center for Class Action Fairness, Ninth Circuit reverses trial court approval of Apple MagSafe settlement [CCAF]
  • Mississippi’s major tort reform, viewed in retrospect after ten years [Geoff Pender, Jackson Clarion Ledger]

{ 3 comments }

1 Mannie 05.15.14 at 8:41 am

In the sign installer case, I’d like to see what sort of contract he had with the city. Generally, there is a right of access clause that can be argued to apply and allow the city contractor to occupy the worksite.

Maybe it’s just an informal work order, but I would think that a right of access would still apply, and be implied by the work order.

2 proof 05.15.14 at 9:25 am

Why does he need a special provision on his contract/ It should be a matter of common sense that a contracted worker must be given sufficient leeway to perform the assigned task without fear of prosecution for violating minor regulations. In this case, he either parked under wherever he installed the sign (in which case he probably wouldn’t park past the lime) or parked and used the stationary vehicle for resupply (which meant it should be immune from ticketing while being used as an “emergency vehicle”, like a fire engine or police car.

3 Jim Collins 05.15.14 at 9:40 am

The guy installing the signs should have put up work area signs and coned the area off. Most municipalities have laws in place to allow for this. On the other hand, the cop was a jerk.

Comments on this entry are closed.