“Preventing an individual from jumping off of the 86th floor of the Empire State Building is neither extreme nor outrageous,” wrote Judge Jane Solomon in disallowing the emotional-distress claim of Jeb Corliss, a daredevil jumper who had been prevented from jumping off the skyscraper in 2006. Solomon also found that the owners of the building had not defamed Corliss in legal papers when they called his stunt attempt “illegal.” (He was in fact convicted on misdemeanor charges.) The owners are suing Corliss for damages over the incident, which forced an hourlong shutdown of the observation deck. [AP]
Archive for 2010
Oil cleanup and the Jones Act
Critics say the U.S. government has turned down offers of state-of-the-art Gulf cleanup help from the Netherlands and other countries because it would require a waiver of the Jones Act, a union-backed law from 1920 that restricts coastwise marine trade to U.S. ships and crews. [Houston Chronicle, Mark Perry, Mike Riggs/Daily Caller] More: Keith Hennessey, via PoL, on the Bush Administration experience with Jones Act waivers after Katrina and Rita. Yet more: according to the Obama administration, waivers wouldn’t make a difference. More: Bainbridge.
“Legislation won’t close gender gap in sciences”
A small federally funded industry now devotes itself to hectoring and badgering math, engineering and the hard sciences over supposed gender bias, but the evidence to back its contentions is thin [John Tierney, New York Times] Earlier here, here, here, etc.
All hail St. Ives
“A lawyer and not a thief / A marvelous thing to the people” [Steele/Legal Ethics Forum] The name day for St. Yves/Ives, by the way, is May 19, according to this page.
“‘Carlos the Jackal’ Still Worried About His Image”
More about legal action on behalf of a character one wouldn’t think would have any reputation left to lose. [Lowering the Bar] Earlier here.
Brandeis on privacy
The most overrated law review article in history? Or an instance of useful legal doctrine developed from imperfect origins? [Stewart Baker, Volokh]
Securities law and spill news
“Given recent volatility in BP share price, I’m told that information related to top kill is now considered stock-market sensitive, which means it has to be managed under disclosure rules for the London and N.Y. stock exchanges,” the BP media official said in an e-mail message. “In a nutshell, that means all investors must be provided information on an equal basis. That precludes me from sending you updates as various aspects of the operation unfold.” — today’s New York Times. Readers can correct me if I’m wrong, but I believe securities law itself, and not merely private exchange rules, currently constrains companies’ release of stock-market-sensitive information.
P.S.: Ira Stoll, better informed than I about the background, makes the same point: “I agree with Mr. Carr that this is a problem, but his quarrel should be with the SEC and Reg FD, not with BP.”
June 14 roundup
- Study: Lawyers overestimate their chance of prevailing in litigation [Post, Volokh]
- Novell court victory might spell end to SCO Linux-infringement claims [GrokLaw, earlier]
- “Law firms violating copyrights?” [Mister Thorne]
- Lawyers say New Jersey money-laundering statute “uniquely criminalizes the mere possession of U.S. currency” [NJLJ]
- Ted Frank vs. critic on $28 million Sacramento nursing home award [PoL]
- Advocates push “right to development” for developing countries [Kelly, Global Governance Watch]
- For once Connecticut AG Blumenthal wants a damage award reduced [Hartford Courant, earlier at PoL]
- “Did You Know That the Real World Has an STD Waiver?” [Mystal, AtL]
“Academic Battle Delays Publication by 3 Years”
“The paper [published this week by the American Psychological Association] is a critique of a rating scale that is widely used in criminal courts to determine whether a person is a psychopath and likely to commit acts of violence. It was accepted for publication in a psychological journal in 2007, but the inventor of the rating scale saw a draft and threatened a lawsuit if it was published, setting in motion a stultifying series of reviews, revisions and legal correspondence.” [Benedict Carey, New York Times]
“The BP oil spill legal primer”
Roger Parloff at Fortune answers some frequently asked questions. Last week he wrote about the supposed, but largely irrelevant, $75 million “cap,” in actuality, according to one expert, a provision of a law “designed to expand liability.” Earlier here.
P.S. From the WSJ (paywall):
Under all but the most dire situations, BP should have little trouble servicing its debts. The biggest risk to the company is a government-driven collapse, but experts doubt the U.S. government can carry out its harshest threats, such as forcing BP to pay the salaries of workers laid off because of the federal moratorium on deepwater drilling. “I cannot imagine that the U.S. government has anything close to the authority to do that” says Jim Langdon, executive partner at the law firm of Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld.