- Judge Ramos disallows settlement of Citigroup directors derivative suit: deal had met defendants’ needs, plaintiff’s lawyers’ too, but not shareholders’ [PDF of decision courtesy NY Lawyer]
- Drove a golf cart into the path of his car as it was being repossessed, jury decides he deserves $56,837 [MC Record]
- Per ACOG, 92 percent of NY ob/gyns say they’ve been sued at least once [NY Post edit; more]
- New British online-gambling law could trip up some virtual-world/massively multiplayer online games [GamesIndustry.biz]
- Good news for bloggers: Iowa-based site can’t be sued in New York just because it answered questions from NY reader and accepted NY donations [Best Van Lines v. Walker, Second Circuit; McLaughlin]
- Another great idea from Public Citizen: let’s not use new drugs till they’ve been on the market for seven years [Pharmalot via KevinMD]
- After conviction of Mississippi trial lawyer Paul Minor in judicial corruption scandal, squabbling drags on over sentencing [Jackson Clarion-Ledger]
- Conservative public interest law firms “can win some big cases [but] are notorious for lacking follow-through” [Tushnet, L.A. Times]
- Contestants in Australian business dispute probably wound up spending more on the litigation than had been at stake in the first place [Sydney Morning Herald]
- New at Point of Law: New Hampshire governor vetoes trial lawyers’ bill; global warming litigation to be bigger than tobacco?; the Times notices HIPAA;
- It’s my emotional-support dog, and my lawyer says you have to let it into your store [eight years ago on Overlawyered, before these stories started getting common]
July 9 roundup
Judge Ramos disallows settlement of Citigroup directors derivative suit: deal had met defendants’ needs, plaintiff’s lawyers’ too, but not shareholders’ [PDF of decision courtesy NY Lawyer] Drove a golf cart into the path of his car as it was being repossessed, jury decides he deserves $56,837 [MC Record] Per ACOG, 92 percent of NY ob/gyns […]
3 Comments
The quote about HIPAA is actually under-stating the problem: If you go to more than one doctor, you have to fill out a HIPAA form–EVERY YEAR, for EVERY DOCTOR–and each one is set-up different. Same if you have someone, person or gov’t. agency, helping out with Medicare/Medicaid, etc. paperwork. Why couldn’t the law allow for ONE standard form across the board, photo-copies allowed????
Re: conservative public interest law firms – there is some discordance with the body of cases picked up, i.e., what’s “less regulation” got in common with fighting racial preferences? Often, I note, “big business” wants nothing to do with arguments against racial preferences because they want to posture as politically correct. Is one cause used to fund the other? I’d like to see a public interest firm dedicated solely to fighting preferences and anti-white discrimination. The question is, who would provide funding? I imagine half the corporations in America are lining up to donate to the NAACP, but they’d probably run like rabbits from my proposed firm.
Not that I think much of Public Citizen, but your sources are taking the worst possible interpretation of their statement about the new drug. It’s always true that the first users of a just-approved drug become guinea pigs for any effects that either don’t show up for years or only affect a few users. You can’t detect such things until it’s been on the market and used by many people for several years – which makes it always a good idea to stick to the older treatments if they work for you, and let other people (with a greater need, or just less caution) be the guinea pigs.
At least, Public Citizen didn’t recommend that the government prevent anyone from trying the new drugs. I’m pleasantly surprised by that…