Chronicling the high cost of our legal system
Posts tagged as:
That’s a more controversial proposition than you might think; the Connecticut Supreme Court was split 5-2 in agreeing that a hearing was necessary to confirm the validity of a protective order against a defendant who has been accused but not convicted. The case pitted the state ACLU against the Connecticut Coalition Against Domestic Violence. [Connecticut Law Tribune via Amy Alkon]
{ 11 comments }
And now police have charged mom with a felony. [AP/Hartford Courant]
{ 6 comments }
Things you’re missing if you’re not keeping up with my other site:
{ 2 comments }
The Yale law professor, a longtime advocate of probate-court reform, says the Nutmeg State’s recent legislation falls well short of what’s needed; he’s particularly critical of lawmakers’ decision to let probate judges go on carrying on their own law practices on the side. [Hartford Courant via Estate of Denial]
{ 2 comments }
Updating our August 21 item: The Health Department in Middletown, Connecticut issued a “citation against St. Vincent DePaul Place on Tuesday for accepting some donated food from unlicensed kitchens. 
The department has asked the nonprofit group, which runs a soup kitchen, to comply with the health code by accepting food that comes only from licensed kitchens.” [Middletown Eye] The state’s attorney general, Richard Blumenthal, is asking the legislature to loosen rules for charitable kitchens. [Hartford Courant] We covered the Connecticut pie menace nearly ten years ago [Dec. 13, 1999] and have since noted legal crimps put on cookies for troops, church potlucks, and much more.
{ 2 comments }
$150,000 in legal costs to defend challenges to a newly constructed stone wall is admittedly on the high side, but it points up a wider problem that besets the much-envied Connecticut community:
…the dispute opens a window into life in a wealthy suburb, where neighbors have enough money to fight for years over an issue that may have been quickly resolved in a less well-off town. In fact, Westport officials say such cases are not all that unusual.
“More than 50 percent of my day is dealing with these disputes,” said Gordon Joseloff, the first selectman. “In Westport, the people are very wealthy, and at the first indication of anything, they’ll threaten or file a lawsuit.”
{ 1 comment }
{ 1 comment }
Two performers have fallen flat in an effort to get a Connecticut federal court to reinstate their suit. Daniel Schwartz has more; earlier here and here.
{ 2 comments }
Greenwich, Connecticut, has forbidden clotheslines — in an elderly-housing complex — as a purported safety hazard. Its director not very convincingly cited “liability issues – someone running around in the backyard in the dark”. [Christopher Fountain, For What It's Worth]
{ 3 comments }
Gov. Jodi Rell has signed legislation reorganizing the long-criticized system, which handles child custody matters and conservatorships as well as wills and estates; Hartford Courant columnist Rick Green had made the cause a crusade with horror stories. More: Connecticut Law Tribune (cross-posted from Point of Law).
{ 1 comment }
“Throwing orange peels, coffee grounds and grease-stained pizza boxes in the trash will be against the law in San Francisco, and could even lead to a fine.” [San Francisco Chronicle and "Thin Green Line" blog via Coyote] And a Coyote commenter reports from a Connecticut town where
they force us to separate everything. They pick up cans, glass, plastic and newspaper. However, all the other [mandatory recycling including catalogues] must be driven to the dump/recycling center – which conveniently closes by 3pm on weekdays and by noon on Saturday. We spend at least 1.5 hours every week sorting and delivering our recycling. EVERY week.
{ 25 comments }
A house for sale in Greenwich, Ct. for about $7.5 million is decorated in a eye-grabbing way that might intrigue some home-hunters while putting off others. Real estate bloggers start to notice, the tone of discussion turns snarky (especially in comments), and the nastygrams duly follow.
{ 1 comment }
“Inventor of Vibrating Toilet Seat Sues Google Over Allegedly Defamatory Search Results” [Citizen Media Law]
P.S. Also in the news this morning, a less colorful lawsuit against Google over search results: the principals of the New Haven, Connecticut personal injury law firm of Stratton Faxon are incensed that when you search on their firm’s name in Google, you get along with the results an auto-generated ad from a competitive firm.
{ 1 comment }
Via Daniel Schwartz: in Connecticut, S.B. 114, a bill introduced into the legislature this year by labor committee chair Sen. Edith Prague (D-Norwich) would protect the right of learning-disabled workers not to be fired by their employers “for taking long meal periods and losing track of time”.
{ 6 comments }
Noting that a litigant’s choice of counsel is to be given weight in such matters, a court in Stamford, Ct. has ruled against a husband’s request to disqualify the opposing attorney on the grounds that that attorney “simultaneously represents the defendant’s first and second wives”. ["Motion To Disqualify Lawyer Representing Both Wives Denied," Connecticut Law Tribune, May 11 (pay section of site)(Voruganti v. Voruganti, Malone, J.)]
It’s deeply entrenched, yet political pressure for a change continues to build (earlier).
{ 1 comment }
Point of Law Volokh