By way of more chances for plaintiffs to identify arguable red flags in the form of information that a physician “should have known”. [Robert Mintz, HCPLive]
January 8 roundup
- Pa. cash-for-kids judge allegedly came up with number of months for length of sentence based on how many birds could be seen out his office window [Legal Ethics Forum, with notes on ornithomancy or bird divination through history]; “The Pa. Judicial Scandal: A Closer Look at the Victims” [WSJ Law Blog on Philadelphia Inquirer report]; feds charge third county judge with fraud [Legal Intelligencer, more]; state high court overturns convictions of 6,500 kids who appeared before Ciavarella and Conahan [Greenfield]; judge orders new trial in Ciavarella’s eyebrow-raising $3.5 million defamation verdict against Citizens’ Voice newspaper in Wilkes-Barre; some web resources on scandal [Sullum, scroll to end]
- Says drinking was part of her job: “Stripper’s DUI Case Survives Club’s Latest Attack” [OnPoint News, earlier]
- Hundreds of lawyers rally to protest Sheriff Arpaio, DA Thomas [Coyote, Greenfield, ABA Journal, Mark Bennett interview with Phoenix attorney Jim Belanger, earlier here, here, and here]. In deposition, Arpaio says he hasn’t read book he co-authored in 2008 on immigration [Balko, Coyote] And as I mentioned a while back, Maricopa D.A. Andrew Thomas turns out to be the very same person as the Andrew Peyton Thomas toward whom I was uncharitable in this Reason piece quite a while back.
- Ted Roberts, of the famous sex-extortion case, begins serving five-year term [AP/Dallas News, KENS]
- New Hampshire lawsuit over leak of documents to mortgage gadfly site raises First Amendment issues [Volokh, earlier here and here]
- Did someone say paid witness? Judge tosses decade-old animal rights case vs. Ringling circus [Orlando Sentinel, Zincavage] Bonus: Ron Coleman, Likelihood of Confusion, on PETA and Michelle Obama;
- How’d foreclosure tax get into Connecticut budget when both parties claimed to oppose it? [Ct. News Junkie]
- Best-legal-blog picks of Ryan Perlin, who writes “Generation J.D.” for the Maryland Daily Record, include one that’s “humorous though sometimes disheartening”, while La Roxy at Daily Asker salutes a certain website as “Lurid, i.e. satisfying”. Thanks!
Richard Blumenthal: guns, tobacco, and grandstanding AGs
I was a guest this morning on Ray Dunaway’s show on WTIC 1080 (Hartford) to discuss Democrat Richard Blumenthal’s bid to replace Chris Dodd in the U.S. Senate. I’ve been covering the Connecticut attorney general’s legal record for years here at Overlawyered as well as at my other site, Point of Law. For details on his bullying, legally ill-founded ventures into litigation against gun makers and dealers, check here, here, here, here, etc., while for the aromatic tobacco-fee angles, you can start here and here. For the time he sued his own state client, see this 2002 post (& welcome Instapundit, New York Post readers).
Cape Wind vs. Indian spirituality
In the latest round in the prolonged controversy over the Nantucket Sound development, Aquinnah Wampanoag Indians who live on the west side of Martha’s Vineyard say that turbines off the east side of the island would spoil their welcome of the morning sun [NYT, WSJ editorial]
Claim: “lawyers are right to be unhappy”
They’re an expert but unloved New Class, contends Kenneth Anderson at Volokh.
California’s ADA filing mills
They contribute to the state’s bad reputation as a place to do business [Cal Civil Justice]
Drunken boater crashes into pier
The miscreant skipper has already pleaded guilty to manslaughter and intoxicated boating, but the family of a slain passenger is now suing the feds for not lighting the pier more brightly. [Jessica Spies, Greece (N.Y.) Post]
Open season for “false marking” bounty-hunters?
In June we reported on a boomlet in freelance lawsuits accusing companies of marking their products with outdated patent numbers or with other violations of a federal statute that prohibits the use of false or misleading patent marks on products. On December 28 the Federal Circuit issued a decision that may greatly stimulate the activities of what are already being called “marking trolls”. It holds that courts have discretion to impose the law’s $500 penalty per mislabeled item sold, which means that total penalties might rise to gigantic levels; lawyers who bring the cases then split the proceeds with the federal government in qui tam fashion. Coverage: George Best and Jeffrey Simmons/Foley & Lardner, Robert Matthews, Jr., Patently-O, Rebecca Tushnet and more, Patent Prospector.
Child support, through age 23?
A bill introduced into the Virginia legislature would put payers of child support on the hook for older kids and indeed young adults so long as they are attending college. [Hans Bader, Examiner]
P.S. A reader writes: “We have this in Connecticut. It is a disaster. On paper, the CT court is to consider all factors as to whether it is reasonable to order a parent to pay child support. In reality, it is ordered whether or not the parent can afford to pay, whether or not the adult ‘child’ even speaks to the parent. So you have children who are basically giving their parent no respect or any sort of relationship who are given a free college ride. It is also used as a tool by vindictive parents against the other parent.” More: Alkon.
“We were getting people with 60 hours of college credit who were reading at a third-grade level. What do you think you’ll get if you have no screening process?”
So asks Charlie Roberts, who ran the testing division for the Chicago Police Department from 1995 to 1999, upon learning that the city is simply going to give up on testing because of the threat of lawsuits. (Fran Spielman and Frank Main, “Police may scrap entrance exam”, Chicago Sun-Times, Jan. 6.) The problem is exacerbated by the EEOC’s Four-Fifths Rule—of dubious constitutionality after Ricci—which holds that any selection process that results in a selection rate for any race, sex, or ethnic group less than four-fifths of the most successful group is “adverse impact” that “constitutes discrimination unless justified.” 41 CFR § 60-3.