An appeals court in Houston has ruled that two men can proceed with their intended class-action lawsuit against six strip clubs for having added a $5 fee to the price of a lap dance when paid for with a credit card, a practice they say violates Texas law. As has been previously noted (see Sept. 10, 2003), the fun is likely to begin if and when standard notices go into the mail informing past lap dance customers that a lawsuit has gone forward in their name; many of these notifications are likely to be opened by wives and other family members in the class member’s absence. (Roma Khanna, “Panel says men can sue strip clubs over extra fees”, Houston Chronicle, Apr. 23)(via The Slithery D). More: Wave Maker (May 5) wonders whether it might not be divorce lawyers, rather than class action lawyers, behind the scheme.
BlackBerry squeezed
The Canadian maker of the wireless email device in March agreed to pay $450 million to settle the claims of NTP, a company which manufactures nothing and instead makes its way in the world by asserting rights in old patents. Not all is sweetness and light, however: “Critics of the patent system maintain that these companies — called ‘patent trolls’ by their detractors — rely on excessively broad patents, particularly for software, that should never have been granted in the first place.” For more on the controversy over patent-licensing firms, see various posts on our technology and intellectual property page. (Ian Austen and Lisa Guernsey, “A Payday for Patents ‘R’ Us”, New York Times, May 2).
“Butter knife ‘an offensive weapon'”
Britain’s High Court has rejected an appeal by Charlie Brooker of Kent over his conviction for carrying a bladed instrument without good reason. Brooker’s lawyer, Mark Hardie, argued that the butter knife in question “had no handle, sharp edges or points and therefore could not fall foul of a law intended to protect people from dangerous weapons”, but the judges observed that the law by its terms did not confine itself to sharp or dangerous blades. “During the hearing, Mr. Hardie said the law would now catch even plastic knives restaurants and cafes supplied to customers with take-away food.” (Duncan Gardham, Daily Telegraph, Apr. 14; John Aston, “Carrying A Butter Knife May Lead to Prosecution”, The Scotsman, Apr. 13).
Why object to HIPAA?
Why get annoyed at the federal medical privacy law (discussed in this space Mar. 16, Feb. 5, 2004, etc.)?
*Because it means your patients at the VA hospital often have no names on their doors? (MedRants, Mar. 31);
* Because it keeps you from talking about a patient’s condition when members of his extended family call to express concern? (Virginia A. Smith and Dawn Fallik, “Questions remain two years after medical privacy act”, Jewish World Review, Mar. 5);
* Because it brings out the worst in editorial writers at papers like the Philadelphia Inquirer? (Jeff Drummond’s HIPAA blog, Mar. 23).
And: MedRants has more (May 2).
Update: Judge dismisses “happy hour” antitrust case
Last year, after taverns in Madison, Wisconsin bowed to pressure from official programs discouraging youth drinking and agreed to end “happy hour” discounts in the university town, a law firm from Minneapolis swooped down to file an antitrust suit demanding millions for the offense of having colluded to charge higher prices (see Mar. 29, 2004). Now, however, Circuit Judge Angela B. Bartell has dismissed the suit on summary judgment, finding that the bar owners had acted against their will under regulatory constraint. An alderman who represents the downtown area where most of the bars are located “said bar owners had racked up more than $250,000 in legal fees defending themselves”; given our lack of a loser-pays rule, they have no expectation that either attorney Steven Uhr or the three students on whose behalf he filed the action will chip in to defray any of those outlays. (Ryan J. Foley, “Judge: Bars didn’t fix price of drinks”, AP/Capital Times, Apr. 8; Megan Costello, “Judge dismisses drink special suit”, Badger Herald, Apr. 8).
Is death penalty computer uncanny?
The Christian Science Monitor reports that a computer program designed by a team of criminologists and computer scientists is able to predict the outcome of death penalty cases with better than 90% accuracy. The program considers no law or legally significant facts in making its assessment, instead basing its analysis entirely on factors such as age, race, sex, and marital status of the offender and the date and type of offense.
The implication, says Dee Wood Harper, one of the researchers and a professor of criminal justice at Loyola University in New Orleans, is that “if this mindless software can determine who is going to die and who is not going to die, then there’s some arbitrariness here in the [United States justice] system.”
I was considerably less impressed by the 19-variable model. I can devise a zero-variable model that will have a better-than-80% accuracy rate for predicting the outcome of modern American death penalty cases simply by having a model that will always answer “no” to the question “Will the death row inmate be executed?” Given states like California where the death penalty is on the books, and juries regularly sentence criminals to death, but the Ninth Circuit refuses to let the state perform executions, there’s little surprise that a model that accounts for location and year of conviction can do even better. (As an ACSBlog commenter notes, part of Harper’s “arbitrariness” is reflected in the difference in state laws.) Between 1973 and 2000 there have been about 4500-5000 death row inmates, and fewer than 800 executions. (Susan Llewelyn Leach, “Using software to model death row outcomes”, Christian Science Monitor, Apr. 27)(& letters to the editor, May 10 and Jun. 8).
Dorothy Rabinowitz
…is raising questions about another sex abuse conviction, this time of a Catholic priest in New Hampshire named Gordon MacRae. (“A Priest’s Story”, Wall Street Journal/ OpinionJournal.com, Apr. 30). One detail worth recording: a would-be “sting” phone call to the priest, which it was hoped would get him on record making incriminating statements, was made not from police headquarters but from the office of the personal injury lawyer representing an accuser. The New Hampshire press, reporting on Rabinowitz’s articles, relays the views of many involved in the legal proceedings against MacRae who consider the accusations against him well-founded (Daniel Barrick, “Writer takes up convicted priest’s case”, Concord Monitor, Apr. 29; “A radical claim” (editorial), Apr. 29; Denis Paiste, “Judge stands by priest’s sex abuse sentence”, Manchester Union Leader, Apr. 29). Amy Welborn has a thread. More: Mar. 22, 2004, and links from there; earlier posts.
Oz: “Wrongful life case headed to High Court”
“A disabled woman who unsuccessfully sued her mother’s doctor for wrongful life has won the right to take her case to the High Court.” Alexia Harriton, 24, born with multiple handicaps, says a doctor was negligent for not diagnosing her mother’s rubella infection during pregnancy; had the infection been diagnosed, mom would have had an abortion. (AAP/News.com.au, Apr. 29). More on wrongful life/wrongful birth cases: Sept. 16, 2004 and links from there. Update May 27, 2006: court rules against wrongful life concept.
Belated Arbor Day special: Matthew Davis
If you see fewer trees in your California city, it’s because attorney Matthew Davis is making a practice out of suing landowners or public agencies when people are injured by falling tree limbs in highly populated areas. Cities may well find that cutting down trees is cheaper than maintaining them to a standard that avoids lawsuits, or taxpayers may find themselves footing the bill for insuring the public when the bough breaks. (Justin Scheck, “Lawyer’s Accidental Specialty in Tree Lawsuits Bears Fruit”, The Recorder, May 2).
$1 in damages, $1 million in attorneys’ fees?
After eight years and three trials, a group of protesters whose eyes were swabbed with pepper spray during a series of anti-logging demonstrations finally won their case Thursday against Humboldt County sheriff’s deputies and Eureka police—but were awarded only $1 each in damages.
The protestors had blocked a public road by locking their arms together inside metal pipes, and argued that the police should have used a grinder to cut through the metal. One press account credulously repeats: “‘It was never about the money,’ [attorney Dennis] Cunningham said. ‘It was always about the principle.'” This contradicts the complaint in the case, which asked for punitive damages, and I wonder if the press will remind Cunningham of his statement when the plaintiffs ask for attorney’s fees—which are now potentially available to the plaintiffs because of the “success” of the $1 verdict in a civil rights case. The plaintiffs’ web page estimates that they will ask for about a million dollars. (Stacy Finz, “Logging protesters win pepper spray case”, SF Chronicle, Apr. 29; Justin M. Norton, AP, Apr. 29; Plaintiffs’ web site).