- “American Express Settlement Collapses Amid Charges Of Collusion” [Daniel Fisher]
- Some on Capitol Hill would like U.S. Treasury to return money seized from South Mountain Creamery in now-notorious structuring case [Washington Post, our earlier coverage]
- CEO pay shaming theory has been tried and failed twice, but why not one more try? [Marc Hodak, earlier]
- Another big courtroom reverse for SEC in use of in-house administrative law judges [Reuters]
- Judge Easterbrook on competitive federalism, Delaware, and incorporation [Robert Goddard, Corporate Law and Governance quoting Corre Opportunities Fund, LP v. Emmis Communications Corp.]
- How far will California go to tax one wealthy ex-resident? Consider saga of Gilbert Hyatt vs. Franchise Tax Board [Lloyd Billingsley, Daily Caller]
- Apparently so: “Is Securities Litigation’s Future Secure?” [Nick Goseland, Above the Law]
Neighbors sue parents of 8 year old who feeds crows
Earlier this year, worldwide media profiled Gabi Mann, 8, of Seattle, who has fed and made friends with a large number of crows who bring her trinkets in return. [BBC, Audubon] Now some neighbors are suing parents Lisa and Gary Mann, saying their “mass wildlife feeding operation” has created a local nuisance [KIRO, Daily Mail]
I wouldn’t be surprised if Mary Poppins were ultimately to blame. “Feed the Birds” was said to be Walt Disney’s favorite song.
The suit demands $200,000, which would pay for a lot of crumbs at tuppence a bag.
The reach of civil RICO
My new post at Cato describes how a pro-Drug-War group is using civil RICO to go after banks, bonding companies, landlords, and other commercial vendors that do business with marijuana facilities legalized under Colorado’s Amendment 64. Whatever you think of the underlying Colorado law, RICO (I argue) puts too much power in the hands of bounty-hunting private lawyers. More: Josh Blackman.
Politics roundup
- Prohibition triple threat: Sen. Marco Rubio would “crack down on marijuana if elected President,” cites “damage” alcohol is doing America and is foe of online gambling too;
- An ever-so-sympathetic take on invading/disrupting other people’s political events, and don’t even ask what the press coverage would be like if Tea Partiers were doing this to anyone;
- Hey, I didn’t meet with a lobbyist! It was a…strategic consultant, yeah, that’s it [Crain’s New York last year]
- Ideology matters: Democrats still more likely than Republicans to support rural subsidies even though they now represent few rural areas [David Henderson]
- Wisconsin John Doe investigator: “No one is going to know what you and I talk about today.” Uh-huh [Right Wisconsin]
- Jack Shafer on Trump’s appeal [Politico] “Trump Lawyer Bragged: I ‘Destroyed’ a Beauty Queen’s Life” [Tim Mak/The Daily Beast, earlier, more]
- Harry Reid raises $1 million from trial lawyers after flying to fundraiser on one of their private jets [Politico]
New Yorker casts shade on “speech nuts”
Do you oppose laws banning hateful expression? You might be one of those American “speech nuts,” akin to “gun nuts,” that so puzzle observers in places like Europe where they do things differently [via Greg Lukianoff, Kelefa Sanneh/New Yorker; pushback from Anthony Fisher/Reason, FIRE first and second posts]
Kathleen Kane: why they’re after me
Arizona cops vs. Rhonda Cox’s truck
Cato’s Caleb Brown talks with attorney J. Cabou about the legal fight over Arizona’s civil asset forfeiture law, which authorizes “one-way” fees to be made available to prevailing law enforcement, but not to prevailing citizens. Note, by the way, that the (very real) due process objections to one-way fee-shifting are in many ways equally applicable to one-way fee-shift provisions found in numerous other areas of law, including discrimination and environmental statutes.
“Throwed rolls” result in Missouri suit
Lambert’s Cafe, based in Sikeston, Missouri, bills itself as the “Home of Throwed Rolls” because of its famous practice of having servers toss dinner rolls to customers. It’s now being sued for guess what [WDAF, RiverFront Times] Last year the Missouri Supreme Court ruled in favor of a plaintiff claiming injury from a hot dog thrown by a mascot at a Kansas City Royals game, overturning a lower court which had instructed jurors that they were free to find hot-dog-flinging a risk known to occur at Royals games for purposes of an assumption of risk defense. More: Lowering the Bar and (thanks for link) Fox News.
Liability roundup
- Of course this exists [LivestockAccident.com]
- Eleventh Circuit: no, court can’t rely on professional association’s guidelines to exclude expert witness under Daubert [David Bernstein on Adams v. Lab Corp. of America, followup]
- “Why Can Plaintiffs Only Remember Solvent Defendants In Asbestos Cases?” [Abnormal Use, my two cents way back]
- “Predicting the future in tort law” [Kyle Graham]
- “LA County’s Lead Paint Lawsuit Could Spell Disaster for Apartment Owners” [Apartment Association of Greater Los Angeles]
- Chicago personal injury attorney will face privacy suit over solicitations based on police crash records [Chamber-backed Cook County Record]
- No, it won’t: “Will HR 1927 Kill the Class Action?” [Andrew Trask/Class Strategist; Sean Wajert on House Judiciary action]
Little award, big fee
Shot: Jury awards Colorado discrimination plaintiff $19,000.
Chaser: “Then, her lawyers filed a motion for attorney’s fees and costs. They requested $575,683.83.”
To learn how it all turned out, follow the link. [Eric B. Meyer, Employer Handbook]