September 13 roundup

  • “Court Vacates $99,000 Fee to Counsel for Plaintiff Who Won $650” [NJLJ]
  • Libel-suit target: “Author Simon Singh Puts Up a Fight in the War on Science” [Wired]
  • No, they weren’t “worst”: RIP injury lawyer who hyped “10 Worst Toys” list each Christmas [WSJ Law Blog]
  • New credit card regulations squeeze small business [John Berlau letter in Washington Post]
  • District attorney’s case intake desk should screen out many unjust prosecutions, but often doesn’t [Greenfield]
  • AGs’ campaign to drive sex pros off Craigslist has failure built in [William Saletan, Slate; LNL; Declan McCullagh]
  • “Nursing Home Company Settles $677 Million Lawsuit for $50 Million” [AP]
  • “Judge accused of sexual harassment once helped women sue” [Orlando Sentinel]

On the John Stossel show: video


Cato has posted a video on YouTube from my appearance on the John Stossel show on ADA the other week (related syndicated column). There’s also this clip on the Cato site. And a post from the American Association of People with Disabilities encourages constituents to express discontent with us.

P.S. Note that by editing down Stossel’s words AAPD has made it appear that his harsh criticism of “parasites” was somehow aimed at disabled persons generally, rather than, as was entirely clear from the context, at opportunistic lawyers and litigants who generate complaints to obtain assembly-line cash settlements. Sure enough, I’ve been getting cc’s of furious letters to Stossel saying, “How dare you call disabled persons parasites?!” He didn’t say that, folks. The AAPD should consider carefully whether it wants to go on claiming that he did.

P.P.S. I respond at more length at Cato at Liberty.

Sebelius and health insurers: shut up, she explained

Eugene Volokh, Michael Cannon and Ed Morrissey react to the Secretary’s announcement that her Department of Health and Human Services will show “zero tolerance” for regulated health insurers who inflict “misinformation” on the public in the course of blaming ObamaCare for rate increases. More: Monday WSJ editorial (“Zero tolerance for expressing an opinion, or offering an explanation to policyholders? They’re more subtle than this in Caracas.”) And Michael Cannon at Cato at Liberty has a further roundup post of reactions.

Man plants car bomb and blows up half-brother

And the resulting lawsuit by the bomb victim names as defendants the parking garage as well as the family member. A panel of the D.C. Circuit affirmed summary judgment in favor of the garage owners, however, ruling that a car bombing was not reasonably foreseeable at their location on Wisconsin Ave. in the District of Columbia. [Sigmund v. Starwood, Findlaw, via The Briefcase]