- Any dollar figure will do: “Ohio woman sues for $500 billion after her car is towed” [Jalopnik]
- Rabbit-breeding without a license proves costly for Missouri family facing $90K USDA fine [Amy Alkon]
- Per Linda Greenhouse, SCOTUS in Bush v Gore said “this opinion is never to be cited.” Oh? [Ed Whelan, NRO, further]
- Boston loses young innovation-sector workers by overregulating nightlife [Dante Ramos, Globe]
- “Title IX after 40 years” is topic of a discussion and lunch this Wednesday at Cato; “CA Lawmaker Speaks Truths on Title IX, Bashing Ensues” [Deborah Elson, American Sports Council; Chris Norby]
- Department of Justice is conducting “incredibly aggressive” push against local governments under civil rights laws, or so says one supporter [Bagenstos] “School discipline and disparate impact” [John R. Martin, Federalist Society “Engage”]
- Traffic laws changed considerably following the development of the automobile. Something sinister in that, or pretty much what one would expect? [Sarah Goodyear, “The invention of jaywalking,” Atlantic Cities]
Filed under: Boston, restaurants, school discipline, Supreme Court, Title IX, traffic laws
6 Comments
Boston: “Mumbles” Menino strikes again.
Sometimes I think the Mass. government suffers from “the secret fear that someone, somewhere may be enjoying themselves.”
$90K fine for rabbit breeding?
Do you know you can be arrested for pimping and only face a $500 fine?
That’s then entire penalty for a TSA AGENT (!) who was caught running a prostitution ring!
Amazing that a family breeding rabbits illegally isn’t just told to “knock it off”, but a sworn federal agent who runs a prostitution ring does.
http://www.gazette.net/article/20120611/NEWS/706119952/1007/former-tsa-employee-fined-500-for-running-prostitution-ring&template=gazette
Let’s give credit where credit is due: the Ohio woman suing for $500 billion for her vehicle being towed is at least not asking for disproportionate punitive damages.
I’m trying to find the basis for federal authority over the sale of rabbits by a Missouri farm to a local Missouri pet shop. Another instance of the butterflies-in-Brazil interpretation of the Commerce Clause?
The idea that Bush v Gore may not be a precedent that can be cited is discussed at length in this 35 page student note from Yale Law School:
http://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1036&context=student_papers
A P Herbert wrote humorous fictional law cases for Punch Magazine in the 1920s. He wrote about the jaywalking vs. motor car conflict in the case Haddock v Thwaile, where a pedestrian sues a motorist. If someone brings on to a public road a wild beast that escapes, Haddock contends, they must answer for all the damage “which is the natural consequence of its escape”.
The judge takes Haddock’s side. A motor car should in law, he pronounces, be regarded as a wild beast – a comparison made all the more apt by the size of the offending engine (45 horsepower).
What pedestrian could cope with 45 horses tethered together, galloping at full speed past a frequented crossroads? “The ordinary walking citizen cannot be expected to calculate to a nicety the speed, direction and future conduct of such monsters, for not even their own drivers can do that.”