• Florida trial lawyers have funneled millions to Gov. Charlie Crist and GOP state legislators; now guess why Orlando isn’t going to get commuter rail [Bousquet/St. Petersburg Times; Sentinel]
• What his ex-law firm told the world was “extremely inappropriate personal conduct” was in reality no more than a “brief, consensual kiss” with co-worker, charges attorney in $90 million defamation suit; Kasowitz Benson says it was following zero tolerance policy [American Lawyer]
• SCOTUS, 9-0, Thomas writing, narrows scope for money-laundering charges over hiding unexplained cash — but will that curb forfeiture abuse? [Grits for Breakfast, Greenfield]
• After West Virginia high court refuses to review $405 million royalty dispute jury verdict against Chesapeake Energy and another defendant, company scraps plans to build $30 million headquarters in the state [PoL]
• Even after discounting anti-corporate rhetoric, there does seem to be a story here about aggressive seed patent litigation tactics used by agri-giant Monsanto, a firm known to our readers [Barlett & Steele, Vanity Fair; earlier]
• Medical liability consequences of much-promoted concept of hospital “never events” [Buckeye Surgeon]
• Cellphone rage update: Judge Robert Restaino ousted for jailing 46 people after one of the annoying devices rang out in his Niagara Falls, N.Y. courtroom [Buffalo News, earlier]

Tom Philpott, whose Bitter Greens Journal is intended “as a running critique of industrial agriculture, a clearinghouse for info on sustainable farming, and a working manifesto for a liberation politics based on food” has run assorted short items on that blog under the heading “Roundup, Ready”. The phrase plays on the name of the herbicide-resistant “Roundup Ready” seed line of the giant Monsanto corporation, of which Philpott is predictably a fervent critic. Now a Monsanto lawyer has sent him a cease and desist letter warning him to drop the offending term or else. (Aug. 26, Aug. 29, Sept. 2). Monsanto is already notorious for suing a dairy in Maine on the free-speech-chilling theory that it was somehow unfair, misleading or deceptive for the dairy to boast in its advertising that its milk did not contain artificial bovine growth hormones, since there’s nothing wrong with the hormones; see Sept. 17, 2003.

Animal-rights extremist group PETA has failed in its effort to invoke California’s s. 17200 unfair-practices act to suppress a state advertising campaign characterizing California dairy products as coming from “happy cows”. Without comment, the state Supreme Court has denied review of an appeals court decision throwing out the lawsuit, which had held that official government activity (in this case that of the state’s farmer-funded milk advisory board) is not covered by the statute (see Nov. 30, 2004 and Jan. 16, 2005). (Bob Egelko, “State justices refuse PETA a hearing on the life of cows”, San Francisco Chronicle, Apr. 21).

California’s s. 17200, while handy in kneecapping private businesses which try to defend themselves in public controversies, can’t be used to silence speech by government: “An animal rights group’s challenge to a ‘Happy Cows’ advertising campaign by a state advisory board was rejected by a California appeals court in San Francisco today. The Court of Appeal said that a government entity can’t be sued for false advertising under the state’s Unfair Business Practices Act.” (”Animal rights group loses lawsuit against ‘Happy Cows’ commercial”, San Mateo County Times, Jan. 12; Mike McKee, “PETA Loses Suit Over California Cow Ads”, The Recorder, Jan. 13)(see Nov. 30). Update Apr. 23: California Supreme Court denies review.

Many farmers use anhydrous ammonia as fertilizer, because it provides vital nitrogen nutrients to the soil. The combustible material is produced in Louisiana, and then shipped to the Midwest on barges or through pipelines, and then stored on tanks on farms. However, ammonia is also useful for making illegal methamphetamines, and thefts are a regular problem. (KOMU-TV, “Law Officers Fight Ammonia Thefts”, May 19). If a thief injures himself tampering with an ammonia tank, should he be able to sue the farmer for the injury? Three states, Kansas, Missouri, and Wyoming, say no, and provide immunity for those who store, handle, or own ammonia equipment from suit by thieves. Legislatures are considering the issue in other midwestern states.

The misnamed anti-tort reform Center for Justice & Democracy has noticed the success of the ATRA’s judicial hellhole campaign (Dec. 15; Dec. 3, 2003), and decided to respond with its own report, the “Zany Immunity Law Awards”, intended to single out “special interests” who opportunistically subvert the legislative system to get improper immunity from liability. The cover shows a legislator receiving a statuette, cash in his pocket, and roses with a ribbon labeled “Sleaziest Legislation.”

Exposing sleazy special-interest immunity laws is a noble sentiment–but it’s a sure sign of how few and far between such laws are that CJD singles out the sensible anhydrous ammonia immunity laws for its top ten list. The CJD incorrectly blames the law on a supposed “anhydrous ammonia business lobby”; in fact, it’s groups like the Michigan Farm Bureau that push for laws like Michigan S.B. 786. Indeed, the only group to oppose such laws? Trial lawyers’ lobbying groups. See also Kelly Lenz, “Fertilizer law to help farmers”, Farm and Auction, Jun. 12, 2002.

How ridiculous are the CJD awards? One of the top ten “zany immunity laws” refers to “immunity” granted to placebo manufacturers and distributors. Except the immunity in question isn’t immunity–it’s an exception to a criminal statute prohibiting the sale of fake drugs! E.g., Fla. Stat. 817.564(6)(a). (This is the only appearance of the word “placebo” in the Florida Code. It’s telling that CJD omits the statutory cite in its footnotes.) Perhaps this law is zany, but it’s hardly an example of a special interest group buying sleazy legislation that damages consumers. A subject of a research test who is injured by adulterated placebos (has this ever happened?) will still have a cause of action.

Continue Reading »

The giant chemical and agribusiness company is suing the Oakhurst Dairy in Maine “for promoting its products as containing milk from cows who are not treated with artificial growth hormones. Monsanto, which makes the leading artificial hormone for cows, said the marketing implies that there’s something wrong with milk from treated cows, even though studies show the milk is no different than milk from untreated cows.” (Edward D. Murphy, “On the front lines of free speech”, Portland Press Herald, Aug. 31; Kristen Philipkosky, “Sour Grapes over Milk Labeling”, Wired News, Sept. 16). As the Press-Herald’s Murphy suggests, this kind of suit can work very similarly to one like Nike v. Kasky in chilling controversial business speech, the difference being that in this case one business is doing it to another.