Posts tagged as:

California

November 2 roundup

by Walter Olson on November 2, 2009

  • Worst, most dangerous legal trend of the moment: trial lawyers continue big Capitol Hill push to overturn Supreme Court’s valuable Iqbal and Twombly decisions on lawsuit procedure [Point of Law and more, Thomas Dupree/WLF, Beck & Herrmann and more, earlier]
  • Lawyers rush to courthouse to beat deadline for new Oklahoma limits on liability suits [Tulsa World]
  • Spokesman for Attorney General Jerry Brown admits he’s taped reporter conversations without their consent, seeming violation of California law [SF Chronicle]
  • UK: motorist could face prosecution for splashing kids by driving through puddle, at what she says was kids’ request [BoingBoing]
  • “Is the pay czar unconstitutional?” [Bainbridge on McConnell, WSJ; Ribstein on link to PCAOB case]
  • More “deceptively named fruity cereal” suits in California [Lowering the Bar ("I still think this is like claiming emotional distress because you just learned 'The Hobbit' isn't a true story,") Ken at Popehat ("Froot of the Poisonous Tree of Litigiousness"), earlier here, here, here, here, etc.]
  • A city of stool pigeons: Chicago to pay those who inform on tax cheats [NBC Chicago]
  • Ill-fated stint as pole dancer leads to lawsuit against Arizona bar [Above the Law]

{ 1 comment }

The talk of the internet

by Walter Olson on October 28, 2009

Arnold Schwarzenegger’s acrostic veto [TechCrunch, language].

{ 3 comments }

California civil Gideon

by Ted Frank on October 27, 2009

California has enacted the nation’s first “civil Gideon” law, providing free counsel to litigants in child custody and eviction cases. I’m quoted in the Wall Street Journal’s article, saying why that may not be such a good idea.

{ 11 comments }

If you thought Sacramento’s new curbs on big-screen TVs were bad, brace yourself. David Shepardson, Detroit News:

California’s latest requirement for the auto industry — advanced window glazing to keep vehicles cooler — could prevent drivers from making phone calls, listening to satellite radio or using garage door openers.

More: Carter Wood/ShopFloor, Jon Fleischman/Flash Report. And Aaron Renn at Urbanophile has a broader look at California’s decline.

{ 1 comment }

Some predict the new $50,000 fine for unauthorized clicking — and the law’s provision allowing suits against publications that have knowingly run the photos — will have a chilling effect on news gathering [WSJ Law Blog, PI Newswire]

{ 4 comments }

October 15 roundup

by Walter Olson on October 15, 2009

  • “Jury Says No to Libel Claim Over Truthful E-Mail” [NLJ, Ardia/Citizen Media Law; high-profile First Circuit Noonan v. Staples case, earlier here and here]
  • Transmission of folk music is getting tangled in copyright claims [BoingBoing]
  • Scientific shortcut? Veterans Department will presume Parkinson’s, common heart ailment are caused by Agent Orange for GIs who set foot in Vietnam [NY Times]
  • Federal hate crimes bill: yes, courts will consider speech and beliefs in assessing penalties [Sullum and more, Bader]
  • Texas trial lawyer Mark Lanier’s famed Christmas bash will feature Bon Jovi this year [ABA Journal, background here and here]
  • Let’s explain our Constitution to her: U.K. cabinet minister thinks Arnie can close private website because it’s based in California and he’s governor [Lund, Prawfsblawg]
  • Ten best Supreme Court decisions, from a libertarian point of view? [Somin, Volokh]
  • Cert petition on dismissal of suit against Beretta shows Brady Center still haven’t given up on undemocratic campaign to achieve gun control through liability litigation [Public Nuisance Wire interview with Jeff Dissell, NSSF]

{ 2 comments }

October 10 roundup

by Walter Olson on October 10, 2009

{ 2 comments }

John Steele at Legal Ethics Forum finds much to unpack in a lawyer’s statement defending his zealous advocacy in a California discovery dispute.

Update on Mraz v. Chrysler

by Ted Frank on September 30, 2009

Readers might remember the Mraz case, where a driver was run over by his own truck because he failed to engage the parking brake, and a jury nevertheless awarded $55 million. (March 8 and March 21, 2007.)

The Chrysler bankruptcy threw a wrench into the appellate process. Given the number of unsecured (and secured!) creditors who were taking a haircut on what Chrysler owed them, and the weakness of the case, one would expect the claim to be extinguished. But Chrysler unilaterally (and almost certainly politically) decided not to extinguish product-liability lawsuits against it, and the Mraz case has settled for $24 million. (Amanda Bronstad, “Chrysler bankruptcy judge approves $24 million personal injury settlement”, National Law Journal, Sep. 25). Of course, the likely $8-$10 million attorneys’ fee in this case is being funded by taxpayers’ bailout money.

{ 1 comment }

If you’re not following my other site, here’s some of what you’re missing:

Why not add Point of Law to your Google Reader or other RSS reader today, along of course with Overlawyered, if you haven’t yet?

The California Supreme Court “has refused to reinstate a lawsuit by a man who approached the flames at the Burning Man festival and got burned.” [Bob Egelko, San Francisco Chronicle; California Civil Justice; earlier here and here][name of second linked source corrected]

Foreclosure-relief scams

by Walter Olson on September 15, 2009

The incoming president of the state bar of California is blasting lawyers for their role. [L.A. Times]

Brian Doherty at Reason on a rather powerful environmental regulator. More: Coyote.

{ 3 comments }

Southern California: “A Ventura woman whose husband allegedly shot up his neighborhood during a four-hour standoff with police is asking the city for more than $680,000.” [AP/Recordnet.com] More: She reduced the claim drastically to approximately $1000 [Ventura County Star, h/t Jane in comments]

{ 4 comments }

squeezed by a bad lawBut the burger stand will move from its cramped quarters anyway. [Sacramento Bee, earlier] Patrick at Popehat wonders whether the lawsuit by Kimberly Block and attorney Jason Singleton would have ended differently in the days before the Internet.

{ 3 comments }

The L.A. Times reports (via PoL and Bainbridge) that just in case Golden State government were not dysfunctional enough otherwise, you-know-who has gotten involved:

Lawyers are being drafted in droves to unravel spending plans passed by the Legislature and signed by the governor. The goal of these litigators is to get back money their clients lost in the budget process. They are having considerable success, winning one lawsuit after another, costing the state billions of dollars and throwing California’s budget process into further tumult.

{ 4 comments }

Class action impresario Bill Lerach’s old Lerach Coughlin firm, now renamed Coughlin Stoia, continues to prosper mightily despite the imprisonment of its former principal, but federal judge James Rosenbaum in Minnesota has now knocked $45 million off a $110 million fee request in a settlement of a class action against UnitedHealth, saying the firm would probably not have been selected as lead counsel had Lerach “timely and fully” disclosed to the court his status as a target of federal investigation. The lead plaintiff in the case was CALPERS, the California public employee pension fund that has long enjoyed cozy relations with politicians, unions and prominent class-actioneers. [Dan Levine, The Recorder/Law.com]

George Wallace reports:

Late [July 31], the California Court of Appeal issued its decision in the case of McMahon v. Craig, holding unequivocally that California law does not permit an animal owner to recover damages for his or her emotional distress at the injury or death of an animal caused by negligence, and that there can be no recovery of damages for loss of the companionship of a non-human companion.

The report is first-hand, for it was blogger Wallace who represented the winning side in the case. Congratulations are in order.