Related posts

• £300 billion worth of long memories (0)
• £204.53 dispute, £350,000 cost of defense (0)
• Window box menace averted (0)
• When a Holy Saint sues (0)
• What have they done with the old Rose and Crown? (2)

Related posts

• Wall Street Journal on banana-suit scandal (1)
• Update: Texaco $33.8 M punitive damages award tossed (0)
• Tort Deform (0)
• The right to be injured, redux? (2)
• The Litigation Lobby’s “frivolous” bait-and-switch: the Judge Roy Pearson pants-suit (4)

Unless you’d read one of the very few skeptical evaluations of the case — many of them written by Ted Frank — you may have been shocked this July when a Houston jury summarily rejected Jamie Leigh Jones’s lawsuit. Now — better late than never — the Houston Chronicle shreds the popular narrative of the affair and its media coverage in particular (ABC News: a tale of “sexual brutality, corporate indifference and government inaction.”) Is it too much to hope that anyone will be embarrassed enough to apologize?

More: As commenter E-Bell notes, journalist Stephanie Mencimer, with whom we’ve had our differences in the past, deserves due credit for this July coverage in the unlikely venue of Mother Jones. And quoth @Popehat: “‘Putting the victim on trial’ is code for ‘defending yourself and testing the evidence.’”

Related posts

• Arbitration for me, but not for thee (3)
• What liberal media bias? Part DCCXV (15)
• That day in court (21)
• Arbitration and the free market (28)
• Yes, I’m being facetious (16)

• Mother ship? White House staffers depart for Harvard Law School [Politico]
• New York: “Lawmakers consider lawyer-friendly med-mal bills,” even as many key legislators moonlight at personal injury firms [Reuters]
• David Brooks on explosive political potential of Fannie Mae scandal [NYTimes] After Kentucky bar panel’s vote to disbar Chesley, Ohio AG pulls him off Fannie Mae suit [Adler, Frank, Beth Musgrave/Lexington Herald-Leader]
• Alabama legislature removes Jim Crow language from state constitution — but black lawmakers oppose the idea [Constitutional Daily]
• AAJ lobbyist Andy Cochran works GOP turf, has convinced trial lawyers to sponsor Christian radio program [Mokhiber, "Seventh Amendment Advocate"]
• Centers for Disease Control funnels grants to allies for political advocacy on favored public-health causes [Jeff Stier, Daily Caller]
• Must have mistaken her for a jury: “John Edwards Sought Millions From Heiress” [ABC News] “One thing [worse than Edwards's] conduct is the government’s effort to put him in jail for it.” [Steve Chapman]

Related posts

• “The Real Mortgage Fraud” (9)
• The Pop Tort: John Edwards and the Valerie Lakey case (8)
• Somewhat off-topic thought (2)
• October 12 roundup (4)
• Edwards to be AG in Obama administration? (6)

Related posts

• Update: Mohr v. DaimlerChrysler $53 million verdict (0)
• Update: Joshua Flax/Chrysler verdict (0)
• Update: Joshua Flax v. Chrysler seat back case (0)
• SCOTUS refuses to review Flax punitive damages (4)
• Potter v. Ford Motor (1)

The New York-based Center for Justice and Democracy, which describes its mission as “protecting our civil justice system,” released a statement calling Obama’s remarks “disgusting” because many proposed changes would affect cases with merit. “The Republican proposals would weaken the legal rights of sick and injured patients and lessen the accountability of incompetent doctors and unsafe hospitals,” the statement said.

I haven’t seen a direct link to the “disgusting” statement yet, only the NLJ/Legal Times coverage, so I’ll try not to jump to conclusions. (Update: link here, h/t gitarcarver). But I’ve wondered before whether the tone taken by the misnamed Center for Justice and Democracy is so harshly abrasive and shrill that it actually alienates the sorts of centrists and moderate liberals that its trial-lawyer constituency should be trying to win over. Earlier on CJD here, here, here, here, etc.

Related posts

• National Journal blogger’s poll on med-mal (2)
• June 20 roundup (1)
• Howard Dean on Obamacare and med-mal reform (13)
• February 5 roundup (0)
• February 3 roundup (0)

P.S. And a follow-up that really stands on its own as a resource: “The Stella Liebeck McDonald’s Hot Coffee Case FAQ“

Related posts

• Urban legends and Stella Liebeck and the McDonald’s coffee case (23)
• “Hot coffee is back!” (13)
• Update: Alice Griffin v. Starbucks (0)
• Two more hot coffee lawsuit data points (3)
• The Litigation Lobby’s “frivolous” bait-and-switch: the Judge Roy Pearson pants-suit (4)

Related posts

• Judean People’s Front v. People’s Front of Judea Dept. (2)
• With a little help from their friends (1)
• Tort Deform (0)
• The Litigation Lobby’s “frivolous” bait-and-switch: the Judge Roy Pearson pants-suit (4)
• The battle for Edwards’s funders (0)

Related posts

• July 14 roundup (2)
• “The AAJ’s misguided media ban” (5)
• The Litigation Lobby’s “frivolous” bait-and-switch: the Judge Roy Pearson pants-suit (4)
• Susan Saladoff documentary “Hot Coffee” at Sundance (7)
• Senate Dems: Trial lawyers’ pockets more important than anti-terrorism legislation (15)

Related posts

• $1.6 billion tax break for plaintiff’s lawyers (7)
• The Litigation Lobby’s “frivolous” bait-and-switch: the Judge Roy Pearson pants-suit (4)
• Susan Saladoff documentary “Hot Coffee” at Sundance (7)
• Nancy Pelosi to address trial lawyers convention (2)
• Judean People’s Front v. People’s Front of Judea Dept. (2)