- U.K.: “Families told doormats are health and safety risk” [Telegraph]
- Montana judge holds onto case for 34 years before finally issuing ruling [Popehat]
- Free speech and the web: panel from American Constitution Society convention [Above the Law]
- “Driver with ‘0’ license plates wrongly issued dozens of tickets” [Chicago Tribune, Obscure Store]
- Florida judge who presided over Anna Nicole Smith custody case accused in civil suit of looting elderly widow’s assets; probe however led to no criminal charges [Miami Herald, Bob Norman/Broward Palm Beach New Times]
- Economist/YouGov poll finds public supportive of limiting medical malpractice payouts [Point of Law]
- Someone writing San Francisco docket reports may have pawkish sense of humor [Lowering the Bar; Arcata, Calif. Eye’s famously droll police blotter, mentioned in this space five years ago]
- Suing over co-worker’s perfume [two years ago on Overlawyered]
3 Comments
One of the San Francisco docket reports reported by Lowering the Bar, involves a suit by someone named Anthony suing a dentist for bizarre injuries. However, I am unable to find the suit on the San Francisco Superior Court case lists–either by the docket number given or by the plaintiff’s name. A spoof????
Many of the tales told on Lowering the Bar may seem like spoofs, but to the best of my knowledge and fact-checking ability, they are all real. One problem here might be that “Anthony” is the plaintiff’s first name, not his last, but you should still be able to find the case online under the docket number CPF-09-509605. The court’s site is not that user-friendly, but I was able to find it there.
A reader has since told me that it is at least possible for the illness that plaintiff described to be contracted via dentistry, but I am doing my best to forget the story he told me, and I won’t burden you with it, either.
Curiously, although I originally searched by both case number and plaintiffs name (using Benjamin as the last name) I could not find the case–there were some Anthony Benjamins but the cases had different numbers and different defendants. But, after the post by Kevin I went back and searched for the defendant’s name and came up with the case (but no docket description). The site certainly isn’t “user friendly” since only one of the three variables produced a result of some sort.