Alas, court challenges have generally failed in the past despite the many seeming constitutional and legal infirmities of 1998’s Great Tobacco Robbery — its taxation-escaping-normal-constraints-on-taxation, its bald imposition of retroactive liability, its state-sponsored cartelization of the cigarette trade, its odoriferous self-dealing and counsel-contract coziness, and so forth. Doubly unfortunately, the courts have adopted an exceedingly narrow interpretation of the Compacts Clause, which on its face you might think would bar states from entering deals with each other of this sort without Congressional approval. Christine Hall of the Competitive Enterprise Institute, which filed the new certiorari petition, wonders what the Founders would have thought: “It’s hard to believe they would’ve written the Compact Clause for no reason.” [Open Market]
Chicago’s hard line on police-misconduct claims
A year ago the city of Chicago announced a change in its litigation posture in claims against police: it would refuse to settle claims it did not consider strong and would prepare for trial instead. “In the past, the city often settled ‘defensible’ cases because the city’s legal expenses could far exceed the cost of a settlement.” Now the city law department is claiming “astonishing” success for the policy, citing a 50 percent project drop in claims against police. Plaintiff’s lawyers say their clients are handicapped before juries because they often have police records and that “the door has been slammed shut.” [Frank Main, Chicago Sun-Times]
Allstate advances “Toyota sudden acceleration” narrative
We know some consumer reporters can be easy marks for overhyped scare stories. But what excuse does a giant insurance company has for trying to knock spare change out of an automaker by endorsing the scare theories in a subrogation suit? [Mary Anne Medina, Claims Magazine] See also: Laura Zois, Maryland Accident Lawyer.
November 9 roundup
- White House panel’s counsel: no evidence corner-cutting caused Gulf spill [NYT, Reuters] Furor ensues [WaPo]
- Report: grief counselors assigned to Democratic congressional staffers [Maggie Haberman, Politico]
- “Lawyer Sues for Humiliation and Lost Business Due to Misspelled Yellowbook Ad” [ABA Journal, South Dakota]
- Argument today in important Supreme Court case, AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion: will courts respect freedom of contract in consumer arbitration context, or yield Litigation Lobby the monopoly it seeks over dispute resolution? [Ted at PoL]
- No search warrant needed: armed deputies in Orlando storm unlicensed barbershops, handcuff barbers [Balko, Reason “Hit and Run”]
- After Colorado hit-run, banker allowed to plead down to misdemeanors lest his job be at risk [Greenfield]
- FDA to decide whether to ban menthol in cigarettes [CEI]
- Reshuffling blackjack decks is not “racketeering” [ten years ago on Overlawyered]
U.K.: “Health and safety spells the end for cobblestones”
“Councils have ripped up or paved over acres of traditional cobblestones from streets across Britain, amid fears of compensation claims from people who trip over on them.” [Telegraph]
“Foreclosure Lawyers Put Second Mortgages on Clients’ Homes”
That’s the way to help ’em out!
While such an approach is sometimes used in commercial litigation, this is a first for consumer cases, said Lester Brickman, a professor at Cardozo Law School in New York.
“For a lawyer to supplement or replace the banks as a long-term mortgage creditor of homeowners leaves me a little queasy,” said Mr. Brickman, an expert on contingency fees. “It’s an invitation for the public to say, ‘There go the lawyers again.’ ”
OK, we’ll say it: There go the lawyers again. [New York Times via Ribstein/TotM and Knake/LEF]
Blog comments by law firms
When are they commentary sincerely reacting to posts? When are they mere spam? And how should one draw the line? Dan Filler wonders at Faculty Lounge.
P.S. From UK lawyer-blogger Charon, Q.C. a while back: “Fed up with law firms putting ads in comment section of my blog. I am now editing and re-directing all such to dodgy websites.”
When a Holy Saint sues
For more than three years a Sikh religious leader, styled by some “Third Holy Saint,” has been suing lone journalist Hardeep Singh under United Kingdom libel law over a critical article printed in the Sikh Times, drawing an outcry from some libel-law reformers there [Jack of Kent, Index on Censorship]
2nd Circuit: Starbucks not liable in “double-cup” hot-tea suit
“A Manhattan woman has failed to persuade a U.S. appeals court that Starbucks Corp should be held liable for severe burns she suffered after spilling tea served in a double cup.” [NY Daily News]
Mark Lanier’s 2010 Christmas party
After appearing on a television program with him a couple of months ago, I received an invitation to Mark Lanier’s Christmas party (special guest Sting):
The non-transferable invitation consists of a booklet with a password; and, most strikingly, a metal wind-up toy Ferris wheel, about seven inches in diameter. (I have not investigated whether the Ferris wheel is CPSIA-compliant.)
Should I go? I’m charmed by the hospitality, but I don’t have a date, and, moreover, it’s kind of blood Christmas cheer. (On the other hand, in the words of a former CCAF attorney, “Think of it as a modest tort tax refund.”)