- Adios to Rum and Coke? “FDA, FTC crack down on caffeinated alcoholic drinks” [WaPo]
- Flap over Justice Alito’s attendance at conservative magazine’s dinner may be much ado about nothing [Steele, Legal Ethics Forum]
- “Cops Threaten Mom for Letting [8 Year Old] Son Play Outside” [Free-Range Kids]
- Contrary to some assertions, American courts from early on did recognize that tort liability could run into First Amendment constitutional limits [Eugene Volokh, Iowa Law Review, PDF]
- Woman pleads guilty to insurance fraud after obtaining $300,000 over low-speed auto collision [Seattle P-I]
-
Well-known examples to the contrary, regulation doesn’t always favor big business against small [Bryan Caplan]
- Should “professional plaintiffs” have standing? [Brandon Murrill, William & Mary Law Review, PDF]
- Blonds not protected class under federal employment discrimination law, judge declares [six years ago on Overlawyered]
Filed under: alcohol, claims fraud, First Amendment, small business, Supreme Court
3 Comments
Anybody besides me notice that all of the people quoted in the Washington Post article about caffinated alcoholic drinks were under 21?
While I disagree with the 21 drinking age and believe that the FDA should have more important issues than this, I still find this ironic.
The professor makes an excellent point. Courts have long recognized that speech which meets the elements of intentional infliction of emotional distress is not protected speech. Snyder v. Phelps should be easily affirmed, but I’m sure we’ll have long winded policy arguments with some dissenting Justices.
To claify, the trial court’s judgment should have been easily affirmed. I think the 4th Circuit actually reversed, so the correct ruling from the Supreme Court would be to reverse. There are very few fact patterns which even come close to meeting the elements of intentional infliction of emotional distress, and this is certainly a case where a jury could find them to exist.