Related posts

• October 2000 archives, part 1 (0)
• October 1999 archives, part 1 (0)
• November 1999 archives, part 1 (1)
• May 2000 archives, part 3 (1)
• May 2000 archives, part 1 (0)

Related posts

• September 3 roundup (2)
• October 14 roundup (0)
• Wakefield, of autism/vaccine scare, struck off UK medical rolls (1)
• Vaccines, cont’d (3)
• Update: Takedown ping-pong (0)

I want to write a blog post about H. Walker Royall, the Dallas developer who sues people when they criticize his abuse of eminent domain, but I’m afraid he’ll sue me. After all, he sued Wright Gore III over a website that detailed the city of Freeport’s attempt to condemn land occupied by the Western Seafood Company, a business owned by Gore’s family, so Royall could use it for a luxury marina project. And he sued Carla Main, a journalist who wrote a book about the legal struggle over the Gores’ land, along with her publisher, Encounter Books [also a publisher of mine -- W.O.]. He sued University of Chicago law professor Richard Epstein, one of the country’s leading authorities on eminent domain, for writing a blurb that appeared on the cover of Main’s book. He even sued two newspapers that published reviews of the book.

So after thinking carefully about my potential legal exposure, I have decided not to say that Royall…

I can’t go on. I just can’t. I’m so scared of Royall that I can’t even repeat the colorful epithets that Sullum might apply to Royall if he dared (which he doesn’t) for fear that Royall will then find some excuse to sue me too. But you can go read them if you dare. More: Tim Sandefur, PLF on Eminent Domain.

Related posts

• Update: Dallas paper agrees to second restaurant review (5)
• Sues over restaurant review (0)
• September 2000 archives, part 1 (0)
• October 2000 archives, part 3 (0)
• October 2000 archives, part 1 (0)

Related posts

• September 1999 archives, part 2 (0)
• July 2002 archives, part 2 (0)
• February 2000 archives, part 2 (2)
• August 2001 archives, part 2 (2)
• August 2000 archives, part 2 (1)

Related posts

• Where eagles fear to litigate (0)
• Welcome KTRH listeners (0)
• Update: Dallas Observer doesn’t owe $1 billion (2)
• Texas: another case for payee notification (10)
• Texas: “Public left in dark on accused attorneys” (2)

Related posts

• More on comics clerk’s conviction (1)
• Comics? Must be for kids (1)
• Update: New trial for Julie Amero (2)
• Ontario forensic pathologist scandal (0)
• October 12 roundup (4)

Dallas lawyer Fred Baron told The Dallas Morning News today that he paid relocation and housing expenses for the woman that former presidential candidate John Edwards has confessed to having an affair with.

Mr. Baron, who was chairman of Mr. Edwards’ presidential campaign finance committee, said he paid money for Rielle Hunter to move from North Carolina to another location. …

He said Mr. Edwards did not know about the arrangement.

(Gromer Jeffers Jr., “Dallas lawyer Fred Baron paid for Edwards’ mistress to relocate”, Dallas Morning News, Aug. 8).

More coverage of Edwards’s (partial or otherwise) confession: ABC News, AP, Memeorandum, Marc Ambinder, Ben Smith/Politico, News & Observer, Just One Minute, Shaun Mullen/Moderate Voice. Readers will remember that Ted had the story very, very early, before it was much noticed even on the blogs (more). As for Edwards’s own credibility, Mickey Kaus, whose news judgment in pursuing the matter now stands vindicated, has this to say: “There is now one player in this scandal with far less credibility than the National Enquirer, after all.”

More: Byron York at NRO “Corner” quotes the Raleigh News & Observer account with Baron’s statement:

“I decided independently to help two friends and former colleagues rebuild their lives when harassment by supermarket tabloids made it impossible for them to conduct a normal life,” Baron, a Dallas trial lawyer said in a statement, Rob Christensen reports.

“John Edwards was not aware that assistance was provided to anyone involved in this matter,” Baron said. “I did it of my own voilition and without the knowledge, instruction, or suggestion of John Edwards or anyone else. The assistance was offered and accepted without condition.”

York points out:

Hunter and Young, the recipients of Baron’s generosity, were not high-ranking officials in the Edwards campaign. How Baron got to know them and how he decided to fund their move to California, and why he decided to do so without Edwards’ knowledge, might be the subject of more questions as the Edwards matter goes forward.

Blogger Gina Cobb hopes the window of Baron’s generosity is still open:

I am touched and moved by your generosity. I especially like the part about “The assistance was offered and accepted without condition.” Accordingly, I would like to request the same generosity from you. Henceforward, I would like you to rent me an enormous house and pay my living expenses in perpetuity. I can assure you that the assistance you offer will be accepted without condition.

And see Ted’s follow-up post.

Related posts

• John Edwards and the money power (3)
• Fred Baron’s version of the Rielle Hunter payments (4)
• Eating their own: Fred Baron v. Baron & Budd (0)
• Yes, I’m being facetious (16)
• Trial lawyer “Wikiality” (9)

For this, Poliner sued for defamation and under federal antitrust law, alleging that other cardiologists were trying to dominate the market and prevent his competition. The five-month suspension had federal immunity under the Health Care Quality Improvement Act, 42 U.S.C. § 11101 et seq. (just one of many federal tort reforms that promote safety), but the trial court held that the 29-day limited-privileges created a cause of action that should go to a jury. Poliner lost $10,000 in income over that time “but was awarded more than $90 million in defamation damages, nearly all for mental anguish and injury to career. The jury also awarded $110 million in punitive damages”–despite the fact that Poliner would have to prove damages were caused by the allegedly unprivileged temporary limitation rather than by the five-month suspension. We covered the initial $366 million verdict in 2004, the outraged medical blogosphere reaction, and the remittitur to a still ludicrous $22.5 million in 2006.

The hospital appealed to the Fifth Circuit, which reversed in a 3-0 decision, holding that the protections of the HCQIA applied to the entire peer review process engaged in by the hospital and its doctors, and noting that the damages claim was fairly weak, too, without reaching that question. That’s some, if not complete, consolation to the doctors and hospital who were put through eight years of litigation hell for daring to do something about a doctor’s errors. The blogosphere comments: Healthcare Law Blog; MedLawBlog; HealthCare Neutral ADR; MSSPNexus. The law firm of Foley & Lardner has a good summary of the case and makes CYA recommendations for how to avoid lawsuits–recommendations that will make peer review substantially more expensive.

Related posts

• From the “damned if you do, damned if you don’t” files (4)
• Dr. Lawrence M. Poliner v. Presbyterian Hospital update (1)
• Blogs on Poliner (0)
• Villarreal v. Rio Grande Regional Hospital Inc. (1)
• September 1999 archives, part 2 (0)

Volkswagen moved to transfer venue to the Dallas Division of the Northern District of Texas (”Dallas Division”). Volkswagen asserted that a transfer was warranted as (1) the Volkswagen Golf was purchased in Dallas County, Texas; (2) the accident occurred on a freeway in Dallas, Texas; (3) Dallas residents witnessed the accident; (4) Dallas police and paramedics responded and took action; (5) a Dallas doctor performed the autopsy; (6) the third-party defendant lives in Dallas County, Texas; (7) none of the plaintiffs live in the Marshall Division; (8) no known party or significant non-party witness lives in the Marshall Division; and (9) none of the facts giving rise to this suit occurred in the Marshall Division.

The district court refused to transfer to the Northern District, VW sought mandamus, and got it on the second try, with the Fifth Circuit ordering transfer. (See also John Council, “5th Circuit Restricts Trial Courts’ Discretion in Venue Motions”, Texas Lawyer, Nov. 5; John Council, “5th Circuit Case Could Reduce Product Liability Caseload in Texas’ Eastern District”, Texas Lawyer, Aug. 7).

In February, however, the Fifth Circuit vacated the decision, and granted en banc rehearing. Argument is Thursday in New Orleans, and the decision will determine whether the Fifth Circuit will tolerate forum shopping in the federal courts. (Michelle Massey, “Appeals court scheduled to hear arguments over forum shopping”, SE Texas Record, May 20). The case is of special importance to the patent bar, given the fact that Marshall, Texas, has become the unlikely capital of United States patent litigation. Blog coverage: PatentlyO, Prior Art.

En banc briefs in 07-40058, In re Volkswagen AG:

• Petitioners (Volkswagen)
• Respondents (plaintiffs)
• Product Liability Advisory Council, amicus on behalf of petitioners
• American Intellectual Property Law Association, amicus on behalf of petitioners
• Railroads, amicus on behalf of petitioners
• Law professors, amicus on behalf of respondents
• Trial lawyers, amicus on behalf of respondents

Department of Strangely Shifting Academic Positions: In December 2007, law professor Georgene Vairo wrote a LexisNexis Expert Commentary on the Volkswagen case explaining its consistency with Supreme Court precedents, and writing

The Fifth Circuit is not alone in permitting the use of mandamus in limited circumstances. For example, in Lemon v. Druffel, 253 F.2d 680 (6th Cir. 1958), a case decided shortly after Congress codified § 1404(a), the Sixth Circuit ruled that mandamus was an appropriate remedy to test a district court’s discretion on a motion to transfer.

In April 2008, she signed on to a brief taking precisely the opposite position, which does not cite Lemon. Curious.

Overlawyered has more on the Eastern District of Texas, and on Judge T. John Ward.

Related posts

• Where eagles fear to litigate (0)
• October 12 roundup (4)
• November 26 roundup (4)
• Marshall, Texas: Patent Central (0)
• Blogs I wish I read more frequently: Patent Troll Tracker (0)

Anna from Estonia mak[es] it a point to show visiting friends a sight they could never see in the old country. They laugh, they point, they whip out cameras and take pictures. Of the Everglades? No. Of Mount Rushmore or Lady Liberty? No.

Anna said they take pictures of the idiot signs. These she said, crack her friends up. “Caution: Coffee is hot.” Apparently, elsewhere in the world, you don’t need a sign to know this.

More on the deservedly infamous McDonald’s coffee case. Similar discussion: March 2.

Related posts

• McDonald’s coffee revisited (10)
• Urban legends and Stella Liebeck and the McDonald’s coffee case (23)
• Two more hot coffee lawsuit data points (3)
• Stella Liebeck and McDonald’s coffee revisited II (3)
• Stella Liebeck and McDonald’s coffee revisited (6)