If they were really transferable, we’d all be in trouble. [Stephanie Landsman, CNBC “NetNet”]
Related: Sunday’s New York Times has a long article asking whether law schools are adequately disclosing the high likelihood that their costly offerings will turn out to be a poor investment for many heavily indebted students. Should U.S. News law-school rankings, like cigarette packs, carry warnings? [Above the Law]
A Canadian judge loses his patience in a divorce case. [Lowering the Bar]
Las Vegas: “Allegedly, [13-year-old] Takara Davis was jaywalking when she got hit [by a car]. So a police officer showed up at the hospital and gave the ticket to her mother, Kellie Obong.” [Above the Law]
Church & Dwight, of Arm & Hammer fame, has sued Clorox over comparative advertising of its “Fresh Step” litter brand. At issue is whether the comparison is scientific, per the WSJ Law Blog’s account:
“But cats do not talk, and it is widely understood in the scientific community that cat perception of malodor is materially different than human perception,” the lawsuit said. “Thus, it is not possible scientifically to determine whether cats view one substance to be more or less malodorous than another substance.”
More: Popehat.
Displaying a healthy sense of the absurdity of it all.
It seems major hospital chains will benefit from provisions in the new law curbing competition from physician-owned hospitals [Matthew Shaffer, NRO]
A British Medical Journal editorial confirms that scientific misconduct by then-Dr. Andrew Wakefield was even worse than previously assumed. The resulting media-fueled panic led parents to refuse vaccination in large numbers, and childhood scourges such as measles soared as a result, with disability and even death resulting. Wakefield was being financed by lawyers hoping to sue the vaccine industry. [Respectful Insolence, CNN, AP, Adler]
Both Florida attorneys in a series of disputes were sanctioned after email exchanges that started with epithets like “hack” and “loser,” and then got much, much worse from there. [St. Petersburg Times, Above the Law]
When the federal International Trade Commission takes up an anti-dumping complaint, the law curiously allows, indeed requires, it to disregard the interests of businesses that purchase the commodity involved. A dispute over magnesium imports also illustrates how different parts of the government can act at jarring cross purposes with each other: even as one branch of the federal government was penalizing Chinese magnesium exports, another was launching a complaint against China for undue reluctance to export (among other materials) magnesium. [Daniel Ikenson, Cato at Liberty]