I’m not a fan of Leona Helmsley; among other traits that earned her the title of “Queen of Mean,” she sued her dead son’s estate, financially wiping his widow out with legal fees.

Continue Reading »

Visit the vet, or else? “A cat owner who did not seek treatment for his pet’s serious ailments during the cat’s last year of life can be charged with animal cruelty, a Manhattan judge has ruled. Allegations that the defendant left a ’swollen and bleeding’ paw and other conditions untreated ’sufficiently demonstrate that the animal was subjected to unjustifiable physical pain,’ Criminal Court Judge ShawnDya L. Simpson wrote. The owner allegedly admitted that he had owned the cat for 15 years and never took him to the veterinarian.” (Noeleen G. Walder, New York Law Journal, Mar. 24).

If you’re not keeping up with our sister site, you’re missing out on stories about how expert evidence standards help plaintiffs too (and more); animal rights more voguish at many law schools than those dull old humans; Ohio Supreme Court commended; implications of recent plunge in carpal tunnel cases; 93% enrollment in Vioxx settlement; attorney faces criminal charges after his clients quit their nursing jobs; extensive coverage of Gov. Spitzer’s downfall; more trouble for Florida lawyer accused of bribing defendant’s adjuster to obtain settlement target numbers; ballot measure would abolish employment at will in Colorado; judicial seminars by the securities class action bar; and much more.

In Boulder, Colorado, hair salon owner Joy Douglas “received a $1,000 ticket from an animal-control officer for coloring her white poodle, Cici, pink by using organic beet juice.” Everyone seems to agree that the dye job is not physically harmful to the pooch, who is well cared for in other ways, but Boulder has a town ordinance against animal-dyeing, aimed at Easter-season tormentors of bunnies and chicks, and several residents ratted Douglas out. She says the idea of the pink fur was to raise awareness for breast cancer. (”Boulder’s pink poodle owner preps for legal fight”, Denver Post, Mar. 11).

• Protection of ugly garage views? Garrison Keillor vs. neighbors in St. Paul, Minn. [NYTimes]
• If you’re a lawyer who practices before the south Florida bench, it’s not a recommended career move to use a blog to call one of its judges an “evil, unfair witch” [WSJ Law Blog]
• Nonprofit sleep-off center that takes in drunks sued after rescuing man who then succeeds in laying his hands on more liquor and drinking himself to death [Anchorage Daily News]
• New Starbucks offering of “skinny” drinks “could easily be considered a form of size discrimination” and lead to litigation, complains ticked-off barista [StarbucksGossip]
• Appearance of impartiality? West Virginia high court judge cavorted on Riviera with coal exec whose big case was pending before his court [Liptak/NYT] Update: Now recused, per WV Record.
• Retired drug enforcement officers sue Universal Studios, saying they were defamed as a group by “American Gangster” [MSNBC]
• Not much likelihood of confusion: shirtmaker Lacoste can’t keep two dentists in Cheltenham, England from using toothy crocodile as logo for their practice [Reuters]
• People seized randomly off street for compulsory jury duty in St. Johnsbury, Vt. and Greeley, Colo. [AP/Findlaw via KipEsquire, Greeley Tribune]
• Federal judge orders attorney Robert Arledge of Vicksburg, Miss. to pay $5.8 million in restitution after conviction for organizing bogus fen-phen claims [Clarion-Ledger; earlier]
• Canada: abuser of crystal meth successfully sues her drug dealer [BBC]
• Animal rights group tries to shut down “happy cows” ad campaign [three years ago on Overlawyered]

• Joe Nocera’s recent column on the Vioxx settlement infuriated loyalists of the plaintiff’s bar, and they won’t like his new one on lead paint litigation much better [NY Times]
• Trial of Overlawyered favorite Jack Thompson over ethical charges leveled by Florida bar wraps up, but judge won’t rule right away [GamePolitics earlier, more recent posts]
• Two joggers hit by driver alongside Pacific Coast Highway will share $49 million from city of Dana Point — allegedly the bike lane was too wide — so now here come the concrete barriers [LA Times]
• Do makers of anti-PC documentary “Indoctrinate U.” owe cash to Indiana U. for infringing on its logo? [Maloney, OpinionJournal, Coleman] Update Dec. 11: settled.
• Casselberry, Fla. cop who sued parents after boy’s near-drowning in pool has now lost her job following public outcry over the incident [Orlando Sentinel; earlier]
• Lawyer who says he was defamed by commenters on DontDateHimGirl.com is back in court [Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, Ambrogi, On Point; earlier here, here, etc.]
• Outspoken blog of BU prof Dr. Michael Siegel ticks off “tobacco control” activists [Beam, Globe]
• Warning label alert: old Sesame Street episodes unsafe for children? [Stier, Wash. Times]
• Furor mounts in and out of Canada over “human rights” complaint against Maclean’s over Mark Steyn book excerpt [Wente, Globe and Mail; Eteraz, UK Guardian; Steyn, NRO; Kimball]
• Judge rejects lawsuit by animal rights group challenging UCSF animal testing [SF Chronicle]
• New at Point of Law: How do all those big cases wind up in Judge Jack Weinstein’s court, anyway?; latest Richard Epstein podcast is on antitrust, Microsoft, AT&T, etc.; abuse of the Family and Medical Leave Act; welcome new contributor Marie Gryphon; Yale Law clinic sues Yale-New Haven Hospital; bar official dismisses concerns about cy pres slush funds; breastfeeding accommodation on the job, via lawsuit?; just what New York needs, a new state law school at Binghamton; and much more.

The strength of local animal rights sentiment is not the only reason the event takes place in Pamplona as opposed to Pompano Beach:

…Can you imagine if it were held in America, instead of Spain?

…The running of the bulls would be followed by the running of the plaintiffs lawyers, as they clamor to represent injured parties who, honest your honor, had no idea that such an event could be hazardous to their health. Surely those hold harmless agreements signed by the participants do not absolve public officials of their responsibility to protect people from putting themselves in harm’s way, the class action lawsuit would allege.

(Paul D. Winston, “America not yet ready for running of the bulls”, Business Insurance, Jul. 23).

• Judge Bartnoff declines to reconsider decision against Roy Pearson in dry cleaner pants case [AP/WUSA]
• Turnabout fair play? Louisville hospital sues trial lawyers, saying they injured its reputation and tried to extort settlement [Courier-Journal]
• Employer sued for “post-traumatic stress disorder” after pranksters post co-worker’s profile on gay section of HotOrNot.com [McCullagh, CNet]
• Former Belleville, Ill. cop sues over prosecutor’s letter suggesting his testimony not to be relied on [M.C. Record]
• British race relations agency demands removal from shelves of Tintin comic book [Telegraph]; 22-year-old in Scotland sentenced for “racially aggravated breach of the peace” after website commentaries that went “beyond the realms of bad taste” [also Telegraph]
• Farewell to that little patch of floating liberty, the South Carolina river shack [Zincavage]
• Hey docs: if a plaintiff’s law firm calls your office to talk about a former patient, don’t call back [Medical Economics via KevinMD]
• Yale Club replies to Judge Bork’s lawsuit [Turkewitz]
• Arizona businesses aghast at hiring-sanctions law that suspends their license to operate should supervisor be found to have hired an illegal [Arizona Republic]
• Grants from Bob Barker foundation (Jul. 5, 2001) help fuel animal rights boom in law schools [NLJ]
• University of Utah settles lawsuit brought by devout Mormon student actress who refused to recite dramatic lines that were blasphemous or obscene [three years ago on Overlawyered]

• How to handle illegal alien’s slip-fall suit against supermarket? With some delicacy: jury told only that plaintiff “couldn’t legally work in this country” [Oroville, Calif., Mercury-Register]


• Sorry, docs: “I hate doctors” beats out “I hate lawyers” as a Google search result [Bioethics Discussion Blog via KevinMD]


• Virginia adopts harrowingly punitive schedule of traffic fines. Its sponsor: lawmaker whose day job is defending motorists [Washington Post; NRO "The Corner"; Ribstein; our earlier report]


• A businessman in London is suing Google for “publishing” (by indexing) allegedly defamatory material, and, boy, will the Internet ever be a different place if he wins [Independent (U.K.), Volokh]


• Federal indictment charges Houston injury lawyer secretly paid $3 million to two Hartford Insurance claims adjusters in connection with $34 million in silicosis settlements [PoL]


• Mississippi high court rules invalid former AG Mike Moore’s slush-fund diversion of $20 million/year in tobacco settlement money to evade legislative oversight [Sun-Herald, Bader; also this PoL roundup]


• More RIAA-suit horrors, this time from Washington state [Seattle P-I] Prospects for a counterattack? [Pasquale, Concurring Opinions]


• California Assembly votes to require pet owners to sterilize mixed-breed dogs and cats, while UK animal rights authority mulls rights for invertebrates [Mangu-Ward and Bailey, Reason]


• Here come the tainted-Chinese-export suits, with many American defendants on the hook [Parloff, Fortune] Plus: car with the “E COLI” license plate may be driving lawyer to work [WSJ Law Blog]


• Gimme those antiquities: Peru vs. Yale on Machu Picchu relics [Zincavage]


• Dick Schaap med-mal case evokes shifting theories from celebrated lawyer Tom Moore [two years ago at Overlawyered]

…could soon be banned in Norway under pending animal welfare regulations. (”May ban caged birds”, Aftenposten, Jun. 13).

“Dog breeders have warned that some of Britain’s best-loved breeds including dachshunds, bulldogs and basset hounds could disappear because of new and potentially far-reaching government animal-welfare measures.” Animal welfare groups have campaigned against the breeding of pedigreed animals, saying the pursuit of distinctive characteristics such as head size in bulldogs often comes at the expense of the animal’s health. A controversial Europe-wide treaty on animal breeding would translate the idea into law. “Dog breeders fear that the treaty’s terms are so broad that it would effectively forbid the breeding of distinctive types of dog because their defining characteristics could be seen as risking their welfare. According to the Scottish Kennel Club, ratifying the treaty would mean that anywhere between 30 and 40 breeds would effectively be outlawed.” The director of Edinburgh-based Advocates for Animals calls the argument “scaremongering nonsense”. (James Kirkup, “Euro rules ‘could outlaw 40 dog breeds’”, The Scotsman, Apr. 30).

We often talk about lawyers manufacturing clients in the class action context, but how about creating an entirely new class of clients? Some European activists are embarking on that path, taking their case through the European courts:

In some ways, Hiasl is like any other Viennese: He indulges a weakness for pastry, likes to paint and enjoys chilling out watching TV. But he doesn’t care for coffee, and he isn’t actually a person — at least not yet.

In a case that could set a global legal precedent for granting basic rights to apes, animal rights advocates are seeking to get the 26-year-old male chimpanzee legally declared a “person.”

Hiasl’s supporters argue he needs that status to become a legal entity that can receive donations and get a guardian to look out for his interests.

“Our main argument is that Hiasl is a person and has basic legal rights,” said Eberhart Theuer, a lawyer leading the challenge on behalf of the Association Against Animal Factories, a Vienna animal rights group.

So far, they haven’t had any luck, but they plan to appeal to higher courts, including “the European Court of Human [sic] Rights, if necessary.” The article notes that not all animal rights activists are supportive, including one “who worries that chimpanzees could gain broader rights, such as copyright protections on their photographs.”

But, surprisingly, Americans may already be ahead of them. It’s not unusual for a family fighting over an estate to fight over the family pets as vehemently as they fight over any other piece of property. But what is unusual is giving the pet a say in the matter, as in a Tennessee case decided this week:

A dogfight over Alex the Golden Retriever was resolved by agreement Monday in Probate Court.

[...]

The agreement, which was approved by Judge Karen Webster, adopted the recommendations of attorney Paul Royal, who was appointed by the court as guardian ad litem to represent Alex’s interests.

Guardians ad litem commonly are appointed to represent minor children or incapacitated adults in court proceedings, but legal observers cannot recall another local case in which one was appointed to represent a dog.

See? Lawyers will never exhaust the supply of clients, because we can always creatively come up with new sources. (And if we run out of pets, we can always adopt the idea first proposed by environmentalists in the 1970s, to allow lawyers to represent trees.)

• In the Supreme Court November 29: Watters v. Wachovia. Also an AEI panel November 28, broadcast on C-SPAN1, 2pm to 4pm Eastern. [Point of Law; AEI; Zywicki @ Volokh]
• Also in the Supreme Court November 29: Massachusetts v. EPA global warming regulation case. Previously an AEI panel November 21. [Adler @ Volokh; AEI; C-SPAN (Real Media)]
• Legal cliche: If the facts are against you, pound the law; if the law is against you, pound the facts; if both are against you, pound the table. Table-pounding class of Gerry Spence protegee offers lessons in emotionally creating jury sympathy worth millions. [LATimes]
• What judicial activism?, Part 7356: Indiana state court judge holds “Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act” unconstitutional, complains gun industry supported the law. [Indianapolis Star via Bashman; Indiana Law Blog]
• Entertaining doctor victory in medmal case. [Musings of a Dinosaur via Kevin MD]
• Dahlia Lithwick gets something right; if only it was on an issue more important than a suit advertisement. [Slate]
• Leftover from Thanksgiving: lawyers acting like turkeys. [Ambrogi]
• Ninth Circuit grants potential standing to monkeys over Kozinski dissent. Earlier: Oct. 21, 2004. [Bashman roundup of links]
• Gloria Allred joins the Borat pile-on. [LATimes]
• Speaking of, here’s the future case of Allred v. Kramer. More Allred: Oct. 16. [Evanier]
• Speaking of Allred nostalgia, and of primates, whatever happened to chimpanzee victim St. James Davis? (Mar. 17, 2005; Mar. 8, 2005) [Inside Edition; "The Original Musings"; CNN Pipeline ($)]
• More Allred nostalgia: is Veronica Mars‘ Francis Capra the next Hunter Tylo? Discuss. [Prettier than Napoleon]

Correspondent R.C. directs our attention to the curious claim of “harm” by the last-named plaintiff:

Animal rights activists have asked a state judge to stop foie gras production in New York, saying the ducks used are overfed to such an extent that they are diseased and unfit for sale under state law.

The lawsuit, if it succeeds, could spell the end of foie gras production in America, a goal animal rights groups have long sought. The two Sullivan county farms that are defendants in the suit are the only foie gras producers in the country, other than a Northern Californian foie gras farm that may shut down under a California state law banning the industry….

The first challenge the suit faces is to convince a judge that the animal-rights activists who filed the suit have suffered enough harm to allow them standing to sue. The plaintiffs in yesterday’s suit offered several ways that they had been harmed by the foie gras industry.

One plaintiff, Caroline Lee, claims that the state’s regulatory departments are misspending her tax dollars by inspecting birds raised for foie gras production without concluding they are diseased. Another plaintiff, an animal rescue organization, Farm Sanctuary, claims its employees have been “aesthetically and emotionally injured” by being exposed to the “suffering” of abandoned ducks that they rescue from foie gras production. Another plaintiff, a New York restaurateur, Joy Pierson, claims that her decision not to serve foie gras has caused her to lose customers at her two Manhattan restaurants, Candle 79 and Candle Café, according to the complaint.

(Joseph Goldstein, “In New Lawsuit, Activists Seek Ban On Production of Foie Gras in N.Y.”, New York Sun, Nov. 16). More: Nov. 10, Nov. 2, Aug. 18, Jun. 8, Apr. 27, etc.

The Humane Society of the U.S. says it plans to sue Amazon.com under a District of Columbia consumer protection statute because the online retailer has rejected its demands to stop selling two magazines aimed at cockfighting enthusiasts, The Gamecock and The Feathered Warrior. (They seem to have overlooked Grit and Steel.) The Society claims that a federal law prohibiting the use of the U.S. mails for the promotion of cockfighting events renders the magazines illegal, a position that the U.S. Postal Service itself has apparently not chosen to endorse. (KTHV, Jul. 18; Elizabeth M. Gillespie, “Humane Society urges Amazon.com to quit selling cockfighting mags”, AP/Seattle Post-Intelligencer, Jul. 18; Nobody’s Business, Jul. 24).

Animal rights activists on the march against owners and breeders of dogs and other animals in Bozeman, Montana, and Albuquerque, New Mexico (Stephen Bodio’s Querencia, May 24).

San Antonio:

An animal rights group has filed a lawsuit on behalf of seven chimpanzees and two monkeys, claiming the primates are not properly cared for at a Leon Springs sanctuary.

People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals wants a state district judge in Bexar County to appoint a guardian to oversee more than $235,000 provided for the animals’ care at Primarily Primates.

(”PETA Sues Local Primate Sanctuary “, KSAT, May 8)(via Strange in San Antonio).

Meanwhile, Dan McLaughlin at Baseball Crank reports (Apr. 19) on a Ninth Circuit decision (PDF) which “permitted an animal rights activist’s qui tam suit to go forward under the False Claims Act against a cancer researcher, principally on the theory that the researcher misrepresented the efficacy of his research.” McLaughlin does not pass judgment on whether the research project in question was a good use of public funds:

But I do know that allowing animal rights zealots an opening to use private litigation to harass medical researchers is a horrifying development. You will note, if you review the allegations on pages 6-7 of the slip opinion, that there are no allegations of the kind of things the False Claims Act is intended to protect against, i.e., personal enrichment, bill padding, and/or cost overruns by government contractors. Instead, there are a series of charges mainly relating to the medical merits of the research - a subject that will often be difficult for a judge without medical expertise to resolve on a motion to dismiss (where you assume the truth of the plaintiff’s allegations) or even on summary judgment (where the defendant only wins if it can show that there are no material factual disputes). Result: protracted and expensive litigation whenever anti-animal-research fanatics can gin up a factual dispute and hire an expert to bicker over anything said in a research application, with the attendant chilling effect on life-saving research. Indeed, from the docket numbers on the caption it appears that this particular case has already dragged on for five years just on the dispute over the legal merits.

Of course, harassment via legal process may compare favorably with some of the ways animal rights zealots have been known to harass researchers.

Animal rights campaigners win a victory against a hapless restaurateur in Vicenza, Italy (van Bakel, Apr. 28).