“For the past 43 years the Weston family of Stoke-on-Trent have been in and out of court arguing over a legacy. They should have known better. What must be one of Britain’s longest running legal battles ended in the Court of Appeal yesterday with a judgment that means, in effect, that most of the £480,000 the clan were fighting over will disappear into the pockets of lawyers. …If the Weston family business was now to celebrate by producing a sign, it would read: ‘Don’t go to law unless you absolutely have to.’ And it would be in red neon, as a warning.” (Alan Hamilton, “Lawyers take the lot as family keeps £½m legacy feud going for 43 years”, Times Online, Oct. 26).
“Charles Rangel Thinks He Owns You”
Gina Cobb (Nov. 20) and many other bloggers are appropriately angry about the prominent New York Democrat’s proposal to reintroduce draft conscription. I have one relatively small point to add, which is that no one who respects the English language should ever again refer to Congressman Rangel as “pro-labor”. Someone who proposes to take away the individual’s right to decide for himself or herself for whom to work, and at what calling, is an enemy of the rights of labor, not a friend. (Maybe “pro-union” still works, as a description.) More: Angry Bear.
When a judge sues for defamation, cont’d
Reacting to the recent case in which a jury awarded Illinois chief justice Robert Thomas $7 million against a suburban newspaper, the Kane County Chronicle (Jun. 22, Jul. 19, Nov. 3, Nov. 7, Nov. 14, Nov. 19). the New York Times recalls a 1983 case in which “a Supreme Court justice in Pennsylvania sued The Philadelphia Inquirer for defamation. The case was finally dismissed this summer — a full 23 years after it began. … [Reporter Daniel R.] Biddle, who is now an editor at The Inquirer, said he had learned through lawyers that some of the biggest law firms in Philadelphia declined to represent the paper, in part ‘because they were afraid’ that fighting a Supreme Court justice might jeopardize their other clients.” (Katharine Q. Seelye, “Clash of a Judge and a Small Paper Underlines the Tangled History of Defamation”, New York Times, Nov. 20). More: Mar. 16, 2004. The Times piece also discusses a lawsuit’s silencing of the Alton Telegraph, which once was an outspoken voice in Madison County, Illinois; Ted covered that episode on Point of Law Dec. 28, 2004.
Welcome Brad Messer listeners
I was just a guest on his popular radio show on KTSA 550 in San Antonio, discussing recent stories on this site.
“FDA ends ban on silicone breast implants”
“The government on Friday rescinded a 14-year ban on silicone gel implants for cosmetic breast enhancement, a decision praised by some for providing women with a better product but criticized by others who still question their safety. … After rigorous review, the [Food and Drug Administration] can offer a ‘reasonable assurance’ that silicone implants are ‘safe and effective,’ said Donna-Bea Tillman, director of the FDA Office of Device Evaluation.” (Ricardo Alonso-Zaldivar and Daniel Costello, Los Angeles Times, Nov. 18). Silicone breast implants, available to consumers in most other countries, were driven from the market after a campaign of speculation and misinformation by trial lawyers and allied “consumer” groups, particularly Dr. Sidney Wolfe’s Public Citizen Health Research Group. The campaign resulted in billions in legal settlements over nonexistent autoimmune effects from the devices, none of which had to be repaid even after more careful scientific studies dispelled the early alarms. Chapter 4 of my book The Rule of Lawyers, which tells the story of the silicone litigation episode in detail, isn’t online. The New York Sun has an editorial drawing some of the appropriate conclusions (“Now They Tell Us”, Nov. 20)(& welcome Above the Law readers). More: Second Hand Conjecture channels Virginia Postrel (via InstaPundit).
Boston mayor: Sony should pay for PlayStation 3 riots
Another way videogames are responsible for violence? “A furious Mayor Thomas M. Menino vowed yesterday to bill Sony Corp. for the chaos that swirled around the release of its PlayStation 3 machine after Boston police had to quell crowds grown frenzied and unruly by the hype surrounding the coveted consoles.” (Marie Szaniszlo, “Lucky few got game: Crowds go after PS3s, mayor goes after Sony”, Boston Herald, Nov. 18)(via Cutting Edge of Ecstasy, who comments).
Yet another Borat suit
This one threatened on behalf of villagers from Glod, Romania, (a stand-in for Kazakhstan in the movie) who say they weren’t paid or given releases for their participation in the film, an assertion denied by the studio. The Los Angeles Times gives a largely sympathetic platform to their lawyer, Ed Fagan, without managing to mention the disciplinary trouble he found himself in (Nov. 26; Aug. 27, 2005 and links therein). Fagan shamelessly admits that he will simultaneously file suits in California, Florida, and Germany; international judge-shopping at its finest. (Bojan Pancevski, “Villagers to sue `Borat'”, Los Angeles Times, Nov. 19).
A constitutional right to drink?
An Indiana court in 1855 discerned a right to imbibe alcohol to be among the fundamental liberties of the citizen, and that wasn’t the only court decision holding early liquor-prohibition laws to be unconstitutional. Eugene Volokh has details (Nov. 16).
November 19 roundup
- By popular demand: Alexis Brennan gives hot chocolate to daughter in carseat, little girl spills drink and burns herself after mom drives away, mom sues Starbucks; press mentions one hot coffee case where plaintiff won, and none of the dozen-plus where plaintiffs had claims thrown out. (This case is distinguishable from the McDonald’s coffee case if the mother’s claim that she specifically asked for a low-temperature drink holds up.) [Indianapolis Star; WRTV]
- Former placekicker and current Illinois Supreme Court Justice Robert Thomas wins $7 million libel judgment from newspaper that dared to criticize him. Newspaper unable to defend truth of its reporting, because its discovery requests were blocked by claims of “judicial privilege.” [Lattman; Bashman]
- Copyright trolls inhibit hip-hop music. Is that a bug or a feature? [Tim Wu @ Slate]
- Judge to class action plaintiffs: tell me about your dealings with Milberg. [Point of Law]
- “Plaintiff draws $1.26M penalty. Judge sends developer message: ‘Scorched-earth litigation’ will cost you.” [Knoxville News]
- Second Circuit: Illegal aliens may sue for wages at U.S. levels. [Madeira v. Affordable Housing Foundation; New York Sun; both via Bashman]
- UK Guy Fawkes crowd forced to resort to “virtual bonfire” because of liability fears over real one. [Evening Standard; apologies for losing the hat-tip]
- Burlington Northern & Santa Fe to artists: don’t paint paintings of our trains or else. [CL&P Blog]
- Borat update: “One immediate handicap the two fraternity brothers bring to this legal battle is an inability to find a lawyer who knows how to spell ‘aisle.'” [Slate]
- ATLA on the offense in the new Congress, but their fifth Congressional target, Heather Wilson, held on to her seat against AG Patricia Madrid (Sep. 13). [Point of Law; Albuquerque Tribune]
- Reliving deregulation debates. [Wallison @ AEI]
- Inconsistent Internet gambling ban violates existing treaty, may result in trade sanctions; Congress must now decide whether to annoy anti-gambling Puritans, American IP content providers, or horse-racing and lottery industry. [Slate]
- Roundup of links on new UK law on derivative suits. [Point of Law]
- World ends: minorities and women hardest hit, as applied to noneconomic damages. [Point of Law; Roth CPA]