April 6 roundup

  • Lack of defect poses problem for plaintiff: Toyota prevails in first acceleration case [NLJ]
  • Australia: writer Andrew Bolt on trial for alleged racially disparaging columns [Herald Sun, Crikey, The Age]
  • “Attorneys Put Themselves Before Consumers in Class Action over Faulty Computer Chip” [CJAC, Frank/CCAF on NVidia case]
  • Ruling by Federal Circuit is thinning out rush of patent marking cases [Qualters, NLJ, earlier]
  • Podcast: Lester Brickman and “Lawyer Barons” [PoL, earlier here and here]
  • “Are class actions unconstitutional?” [Lahav, Mass Tort Lit, on Martin Redish book]
  • “Free speech belongs on campuses too” [Ilya Shapiro, Cato, on Widener case, with kind mention of Schools for Misrule]
  • King Canute turns attention to dry land: states mull bills to forbid use of distressed properties as appraisal comps [Funnell]

Supreme Court to consider scope of ministerial exemption

The so-called ministerial exemption to workplace anti-discrimination laws is not very popular in some quarters of legal academia. Were the courts not to recognize a strong exemption of this sort, however, churches and congregations might be forced to employ teachers or even ministers who hew to doctrines they regard as erroneous or sinful, courts would be thrust into intrusive inquiries as to competing claims of fealty to religious doctrine, and the sorts of court orders often issued to bind the conduct of conventional employers might obstruct believers’ freedom to organize church institutions as they see fit. Now the Supreme Court for the first time has agreed to hear a case construing the scope of the ministerial exemption. As public debate proceeds, some might even wind up concluding that the legitimate liberty interest in freedom of association is so important that non-religious organizations should enjoy it too. [Rick Garnett and Chris Lund, PrawfsBlawg]

Recreation on Connecticut public land

We’ve traced the cases in which the Connecticut courts, reversing longstanding law, have thrown open lawsuits against towns over recreation injuries on public land. Bob Dorigo Jones records some of the results, as well as the public pressure that’s been building for legislative reform in Hartford:

As usually happens in a case like this, the collateral damage quickly spread across the state. A group of mountain bikers preparing new trails for a Livestrong charity project was forced to abruptly stop their work because of the lawsuit. …

[A new bill filed in the Connecticut House and slated for an April 4 hearing] would provide local governments and quasi-municipal entities like the water authority with protection from personal injury lawsuits if they open their property to the public for free recreation.

The legislation has drawn support from thousands of citizens and a broad coalition of groups including the Connecticut Forest & Park Association.

More: Rick Green, Hartford Courant.