- “Bioblitz”: Environmental groups file thousands of actions demanding endangered species listings [NYT; related discussion with Jonathan Adler and Steven Hayward at NYT’s Room for Debate]
- War on painkillers could turn many more Florida docs, druggists into criminals [White Coat]
- Feds flex muscle, using debarment to oust company CEOs [Jim Doyle, St. Louis Post-Dispatch]
- “Madigan’s List”: powerful Illinois pol sways selection of Cook County judges [Chicago Tribune]
- Nick Gillespie interviews education reformer Jay Greene [Reason]
- Social conservatives misplay recusal card against Judge Vaughn Walker in Prop 8 case [Richard Painter, LEF, more, AW, LAT] Other views: Whelan, Gillers, motion.
- Why TV shows like “WKRP in Cincinnati” appear in compromised DVD versions [Alex Tabarrok updates a story we had in ’06]
Archive for April, 2011
“Vacaville Inmate Sues State For Sex Change Surgery”
An inmate convicted of murder in 2002 has made it to the appeals court level with a suit against the California Corrections Department’s policy that “sexual reassignment surgery is not a covered benefit.” [KCBS]
“Municipal extortion and full employment for lawyers”
Local governments are often open to “amending” speeding tickets, but in a manner that reflects their financial self-interest — and also pays dividends for the prosperity of the local bar. [Mike Sykuta, TotM]
Comment of the day
By Scott Jacobs, on a guest post by Aaron Worthing (regarding class actions over Apple device location tracking) at Patterico:
How the hell is it that I didn’t have Overlawyered bookmarked?
How, indeed?
April 26 roundup
- Study of how class action lawyers interact with their named clients [Stephen Meili via Trask]
- California releases numbers on how bounty-hunting lawyers did in 2010 under Prop 65 environmental-warning law [Cal Biz Lit]
- According to the tale, lender errors in foreclosure gave Florida borrower home free and clear. Actual story may be more complicated than that [Funnell]
- The very long discovery arm of the Philadelphia, and Pennsylvania, courts [Drug & Device Law, more]
- UK law firm “could face big bill” after sending thousands of file-sharing demand letters [ABA Journal]
- Goodbye to men’s track at U. of Delaware, and the women’s team is suffering too, as often happens with Title IX [Saving Sports]
- OSHA’s proposed “illness and injury prevention program” (I2P2) termed a “Super Rule” with potentially widespread economic impact [Kirsanow, NRO]
Schools for Misrule radio and podcast, cont’d
Last week I was a guest on one of talk radio’s enduring institutions, the Jim Bohannon show on Westwood One, to discuss my new book Schools for Misrule. I always have a great time on Jim’s show and this was no exception; you can listen here. Also last week, I joined the African American Conservatives show on BlogTalkRadio, and you can hear the results here. And Bernard Chapin (Chapin’s Inferno), who is among other things a contributor to Pajamas Media, liked the book and gave it a video review on his YouTube channel.
I’ll be in Dallas over the next day or two to speak with leaders of conservative/libertarian legal groups at the Heritage Foundation’s annual get-together (invitation event).
Court throws out verdict because defense mentioned Liebeck case
“A defense lawyer’s fleeting reference to the ‘uniquely iconic’ McDonald’s coffee case was enough for the Utah Supreme Court to order a new trial in a pedestrian accident lawsuit and allow the plaintiff to seek a larger damages award.” [Matthew Heller/OnPoint News; Jodie Hill/Downtown Lawyer] And Abnormal Use is out with a new interview of Ted Frank, who has written frequently on the hot-coffee case for this site, and who says:
The Stella Liebeck case was exactly the sort of thing that turns into an urban legend, and there are certainly a lot of inaccuracies that crept into the story as it went viral. The Liebeck case got politicized, however: it was an outrageous result and picked up as a poster child for tort reform, and, fascinatingly, the trial lawyer lobby, instead of reasonably saying “Look: the justice system is never going to be 100 percent correct, there have been a dozen hot coffee cases before this one where the courts got it right and threw it out, and you can’t make public policy based on a single anecdote just because the judge made a mistake here” decided to engage in a misinformation campaign to argue that the Liebeck case was both correct and an aspirational result for our tort system – and a disturbing number of law professors joined that cause. If you Google for the case, the vast majority of results are trial-lawyer sites filled with misstatements of the facts and laws. It’s gotten to the point that, in the majority of tort reform debates I participate in, it’s the trial lawyer who is the first to introduce the subject. I’ve been following the case and rebutting the misinformation on both sides since it first made the news, and it just so happens that the majority of misinformation is coming from the plaintiffs’ lawyer side these days. One of these days, I’ll lock myself in a room for a couple of weeks and write a law review article on the subject so there can be a one stop place for truthful information and arguments about the case.
I, too, gave a lot of thought to writing up the long controversy over the Liebeck case in my latest book, precisely because academic sources, and not just trial-lawyer publicists, persistently spread distortions and misconceptions about the case. Eventually it seemed like too wide a digression from the book’s main themes — but someone still needs to write up that story.
April 25 roundup
- 10th Circuit: deposition not a “take-home examination” [Ronald Miller]
- Class-action suit over salt in Campbell’s soup [NJ.com] Boom predicted in suits over claims of healthy food [Ken Odza]
- Roommate indicted in Tyler Clementi suicide [Scott Greenfield, Beldar]
- “Ban fraternities” screed in WSJ: were editors trying to make Caitlin Flanagan look ridiculous on purpose? [Ann Althouse, Instapundit]
- Emotional value of family dog: “Seattle should not set bad precedent in pet case” [John W. Schedler, Seattle Times, background]
- Investigating gas-price speculation and “price gouging”: “Obama tries to cap oil leak with lawyers” [Neil Munro, Daily Caller]
- Federal law protects peanuts on planes [CNN Travel]
A tale of California labor law
“Bookworm,” the Bay Area-based blogger, tells the story of what happened in a case on which she worked, which arose after an employer encountered the interaction of two California laws, one requiring that final wages be paid within three days, another tilting attorneys’ fee awards toward employees in disputes with employers. A highlight: when the California Supreme Court attempted to correct some of the most extreme unfairness arising from the fee rules, it got overridden by the state legislature. [Bookworm Room]
Gulf spill: “I never signed up with anybody”
Campbell Robertson and John Schwartz of the New York Times find that many Vietnamese-Americans who are listed as law firm clients in the BP Transocean spill proceedings would rather not be law firm clients. “Like [Tim] Nguyen, some maintain that they never signed up with lawyers, but found that claims had been filed on their behalf (about 50 people have made formal complaints to the claims facility along these lines).” Nguyen found himself a client of lawyer Mikal Watts, “and to his further surprise, as a Louisiana shrimper rather than a Mississippi shipyard worker.” Watts, a big-league Texas tort lawyer, has reported having 43,000 spill clients, many mass-recruited from minority and poorer communities; he says he has a “signed contingency-fee contract with every client,” and that he has released clients who changed their mind about representation. “People familiar with the claims process [of one 26,000-claimant subgroup] said nearly every submission was listed as a deckhand with identical earnings.” Watts says the claims fund, administered by Kenneth Feinberg, has kept changing the documentation it asks for.