- It’s still not over: Judge Roy Pearson of lost-pants fame returns to court with appeal against Custom Cleaners owners, the Chung family [WJLA]
- Columbus cops’ class action: dept. shouldn’t have asked us what our ailments were when we took sick leave [Dispatch]
- Culture Warrior Jeff Bell hopes Palin will reverse trends that have “legitimated a contraceptive ethic” [Weekly Standard] Better not count on it [York, NRO “Corner”]
- RIAA has now filed 30,000 lawsuits against file-sharing music fans [Wired “Threat Level”, Ambrogi]
- Recently at Point of Law: Ohio’s Supreme Court in the balance this November; Biden vs. legal reform; guestblogging by Peggy Little and Jane Genova; Lilly Ledbetter at Democratic convention; big Peter Angelos cellphone-cancer case strikes out; call for Australian no-fault cerebral palsy fund; and more;
- Massachusetts high court ruling that docs can be sued over their patients’ medication-impaired behavior is predictably leading to new suits [Globe, Brockton hospital crash; earlier]
- What Alinsky-style “community organizers” do [York, NRO via Bookworm Room] “Organizers break laws if they have to.” [Thomas Geoghegan @ Slate — and he’s being admiring]
- California trial lawyers successfully gut original Schwarzenegger plan to reform award of punitive damages [four years ago on Overlawyered]
4 Comments
I’m dying to know the grounds for Judge Pearson’s appeal. Why doesn’t the article tell us such an important piece of information?
As is often the case, the media seems to have no undrstanding of basic legal principles. The “pants” article says that the court has “decided to hear” the appeal, as though it had some other option. In most jurisdictions, a litigant has at least one appeal as of right from a final judgment. Unless the situation here is something other than a run of the mill appeal following ad adverse ruling, this whole article is pretty much pointless.
“Columbus cops’ class action: dept. shouldn’t have asked us what our ailments were when we took sick leave”
This might make the police more sympathetic to peoples 4th amendment rights to be free from unwarranted search and seizure. [only on the web could I get through that with a straight face]
“”Mrs. Berghold should have been told not to drive,” Greenberg said. “And if she was advised, according to her, she would not have driven. And she wouldn’t have driven to Brockton Hospital, through the front doors, hitting my client and leaving a widow behind.””
Because we all know that patients always follow doctors orders we can believe her when she says she would not have driven if only she had been advised….
Just one more reason for me to not prescribe appropriate analgesics when indicated…