Overlawyered: Chronicling The High Cost Of Our Legal System

Posts Tagged ‘Connecticut’

Connecticut scandal: the tobacco-fee angle

Four years ago (Feb. 16, 2000) we noted that the state of Connecticut had chosen three politically connected law firms to handle the state’s role in the multistate tobacco litigation, a bit of business that yielded a very handsome $65 million in fees. (Other firms that wanted to be considered for the work were cut out.) The three firms included two linked to Attorney General Richard Blumenthal and one, Carmody & Torrance of Waterbury, whose managing partner, James Robertson, was personal counsel to Republican Gov. John Rowland.

Now the firm of Carmody & Torrance has turned up amid the ethical storm swirling around Gov. Rowland, who may face impeachment over various personal financial irregularities. After Rowland nominated Robertson for a Superior Court judgeship, it developed that the Carmody firm had not only performed extensive free services for Rowland but had also agreed to defer payment of some $100,000 worth of paid services. In recent weeks the Connecticut press has had a lot to say about the (relatively small) amounts of conventional legal work that the state government has awarded to Carmody & Torrance in recent years, but (unless we’ve missed something) has expressed little curiosity about the selection of the firm for tobacco work, perhaps having swallowed the fiction by which the $65 million fee supposedly did not come at the state’s expense. (“Rowland lawyer says governor owes firm $100,000”, AP/Stamford Advocate, Feb. 13; Tobin A. Coleman, “Judges asked about gifts for Rowland”, Stamford Advocate, Feb. 14; Gregory B. Hladky, “Rowland?s ethics scandal snowballing”, New Haven Register, Feb. 16; “State ethics law loophole doesn?t exist, Plofsky says”, AP/New Haven Register, Feb. 22).

Filed under: , , , , ,

New batch of reader letters

We’ve posted another batch of letters from readers. Among topics: a Pennsylvania case in which a doctor was ordered to pay for a mistake by nurses in the operating room; an outcry by consumers over the results of a class action (Schwartz v. Citibank) over late fees which is resulting in a $9 million payout in lawyers’ fees and refunds in the range of 18 cents for many credit card holders; a report from a reader that Norton Internet Security is blocking access to our site because we have too much talk about “weapons”, presumably meaning too much discussion of firearms litigation; and a letter on the prospect of lawyers’ going after the personal assets of Connecticut doctors in negligence cases after exhausting their insurance coverage.

Filed under: , , , , ,

Med-mal roundup

Massachusetts: “The Romney administration and the Harvard School of Public Health, seeking to address soaring health care costs driven by medical malpractice lawsuits, are working on a sweeping proposal to move malpractice claims out of state courts and into a new administrative framework much like the state’s workers’ compensation system.” (Ralph Ranalli, “Malpractice plan would limit trials”, Boston Globe, Nov. 13). “Defense and plaintiffs’ lawyers agree that, in recent memory, no medical malpractice verdict in excess of policy limits has resulted in the seizure of a Connecticut doctor’s house, savings or other personal assets”, reports Thomas B. Scheffey of the Connecticut Law Tribune. But now following a series of high awards “more aggressive collection strategies may come into play” as trial lawyers at Bridgeport’s kingpin tort firm of Koskoff, Koskoff and Bieder are “exploring other options” with regard to collecting a $10 million judgment against a Stamford physician insured for only $1 million (“Med-Mal Awards Put Doctors on Alert”, Nov. 18). And a judge in McDowell County, W.V., has dismissed Dr. Julie McCammon’s lawsuit against the West Virginia Trial Lawyers Association and its former president for causing her malpractice insurance rates to rise, ruling that the defendants owed her no duty of care. (Nora Edinger, “Doctor’s suit dismissed”, Clarksburg Exponent Telegram, undated, appx. Nov. 26).

Filed under: , , ,

Specialized business courts

Through most of the 20th Century the preferred model in American court organization was that of the generalist court in which a given corps of judges applied a standard set of procedures to handle a wide, not to say bewildering, variety of cases. In the past couple of decades, however, there has been renewed interest in the idea of establishing specialized courts to handle some types of recurring or distinctive cases: intellectual property, complex mass torts, low-level drug offenses, and so forth. “More than a dozen states, including Massachusetts, Rhode Island and Connecticut, have introduced specialization into their courts to deal with business disputes. Some programs are recent and some, like those in New York and Delaware, have been operating for decades.” Removing complex commercial litigation to its own docket can assist in the development of greater judicial expertise, useful procedural innovation and more consistent law; it can also help unclog the schedules of courts that handle more conventional cases, according to its advocates. The success of specialized business courts is now encouraging other states to consider adopting the model, as is now the subject of discussion in Maine. (Andrew Grainger (New England Legal Foundation), “Business specialization in court system a good idea”, Portland Press-Herald, Oct. 31)(& letter to the editor, Dec. 6).

Filed under: , , , ,

Where eagles fear to litigate

Eagle Pass, Texas, in Maverick County along the Rio Grande, isn’t likely to shake its reputation for plaintiff-friendly jurisprudence any time soon, as a San Antonio Express-News profile makes clear. “L. Wayne Scott, a professor at St. Mary’s University Law School…. who has mediated civil cases in Eagle Pass, estimates defendants there are roughly 10 times more likely to lose than in conservative Dallas and two or three times more likely to fall than in San Antonio. … Indeed, the prospect of facing a jury in Eagle Pass — where Mayor Joaquin L. Rodriguez also is one of the city’s top plaintiff’s attorneys — frequently makes companies more willing to settle and in higher amounts than they would agree to in other venues.” Although a 1995 round of state tort reforms has somewhat curbed the rampant forum-shopping by which plaintiff’s lawyers used to bring suits from around the state to Eagle Pass, there is still a steady diet of cases to be had against major national defendants, including suits against automakers over road crashes and a case against Connecticut-based shotgun-maker O.F. Mossberg & Sons Inc. over a hunting accident that took place in another Texas county. Local plaintiff’s attorney Earl Herring says that a case worth $10,000 in Eagle Pass would be “worth $500 in Uvalde.” (Greg Jefferson, “Eagle Pass remains known as plaintiff’s attorney paradise”, Nov. 2).

Filed under: , , , , , ,

High-speed chase lawsuit

On May 10, in Branford, Connecticut, Sergeant John Finkle attempts to pull over a BMW that is driving erratically; the driver, Thomas Bishop, later charged with DUI, pulls into a motel parking lot, and then speeds back out. Police say they ended the chase because of bad weather, but at some point before or after that Bishop smashed his car into a van at an intersection (allegedly at 75 mph), killing one and maiming another. Naturally, the lawsuit filed by the family of the victim is against the town, the chief of police, and Sgt. Finkle. (Marissa Yaremich, “Family will sue in fatal car chase”, New Haven Register, Sep. 20; Dave Phillips, “Police facing lawsuit from injured crash victim”, Branford Review, Sep. 20). Even if one accepts the questionable premise that it is the pursuer, rather than the pursued, who should be primarily responsible for such a crash, the fact that criminals will be more likely to engage in high-speed chases that endanger people if police have a policy of stopping pursuit seems not to enter into the equation of the lawsuit or the press coverage of the lawsuit.

Filed under: , , ,

Blumenthal embarrassed on gun suits, again

Headline-grabbing Connecticut AG Richard Blumenthal, whom we’ve slammed in this space previously for filing a dubious antitrust action aimed at punishing gun companies for having acted vigorously to stay out of the Clinton administration’s abortive Smith & Wesson deal, has just suffered an embarrassing defeat in his state’s high court. Blumenthal claimed that an email sent by one gun maker constituted proof that gun companies had acted criminally in resisting the S&W deal. But the Connecticut Supreme Court, hardly an assemblage of Second Amendment enthusiasts, has just ruled unanimously that Blumenthal’s claim was false. “[T]he e-mail reveals nothing that suggests an intent to break the law,” wrote Justice Joette Katz for the court. ” … Furthermore, to the extent that the e-mail refers to any action, it is the actions of others, and not of the respondents; it neither advocates that Kimber take any action of its own, nor that others take a particular action.” The new decision upholds the 2001 ruling of Hartford Superior Court Judge Vanessa Bryant that the e-mail was patently an “update of [firearms] litigation developments and does not advocate any criminal or illegal activity.” Will Blumenthal apologize? Will he finally start getting bad press? We’re not getting our hopes up (Thomas B. Scheffey, “Accidentally Sent Gun Industry E-Mail Found to Be Privileged”, Connecticut Law Tribune, Aug. 5).

Filed under: , , ,

Archived tobacco items, pre-July 2003


Florida class action (Engle), 2003: “A $710 million loose end“, Jun. 24; ““Trial lawyers get spanked’“, May 24-26; “Court overturns $145 billion Engle award“, May 22-23. 2001: “Angles on Engle“, May 24.  2000: “‘Not even thinking about’ fees“, Aug. 11-13; “Smoking and responsibility: columnists weigh in“, Jul. 28-30; “‘Poll: majority disapprove of tobacco fine’“, Jul. 24-25; “Florida verdict: more editorial reaction“, Jul. 24-25; “Smoking and responsibility: columnists weigh in“, Jul. 28-30; Editorial roundup“, Jul. 19-20; “Florida tobacco verdict“, July 18; “Tobacco: why stop at net worth?” (punitive damage rulings by judge), Jul. 10; “Another Mr. Civility nominee” (Stanley Rosenblatt), Jun. 2-4.  1999: “$49 million lawyers’ fee okayed in case where clients got nothing” (secondhand smoke class action), Sept. 28; “Personal responsibility takes a vacation in Miami“, Jul. 8; “The Florida tobacco jurors: anything but typical“, Wall Street Journal, Jul. 12, 1999. 

Tobacco fees reconsidered, 2003: “Senate panel nixes tobacco-fee clawback“, May 9-11; “Feds indict former Texas AG“, Mar. 8-9; “‘Not a pretty picture’“, Jan. 10-12.  2002: “Judge overturns $1.3 billion tobacco fee award” (Castano Group), Sept. 27-29; “Welcome Fox News viewers/ readers“, Aug. 2-4; “Tobacco fees: one brave judge” (New York), Jul. 30-31 (& Aug. 2-4, Jun. 21-23, Oct. 16-17, Oct. 25-27, 2002; Feb. 11 & Jun. 6-8, 2003; May 11, 2001).


“‘Lawyers who won $10 bil. verdict had donated to judge’“, Apr. 30, 2003; “A bond too far“, Apr. 4-6; “Appeals bonds, again“, Apr. 2-3; “Mad County pays out again” (“light” cigarette class action), Mar. 24, 2003.

“‘Nanny Bloomberg’” (NYC smoking ban), Oct. 22, 2002.

Tobacco fees, state by state, 2003: “‘Law firms in tobacco suit seek $1.2b more’” (Mass.), May 19 (& Jan. 2-3, 2002, Dec. 22, 1999); “Feds indict former Texas AG“, Mar. 8-9 (& May 22, Sept. 1-3, 2000; Jun. 21, Aug. 29-30, Nov. 12, 2001, Jul. 15, Jul. 30-31, 2002; Jan. 10-12, 2003). 2002: “Judge overturns $1.3 billion tobacco fee award” (Castano Group, California), Sept. 27-29; “Tobacco fees: one brave judge” (N.Y.), Jul. 30-31 (& Aug. 2-4, Jun. 21-23, 2002, Oct. 16-17, 2002, Feb. 11, 2003, May 11, 2001); “Dewey deserve that much?“, Mar. 6; “Mass., Ill., NYC tobacco fees“, Jan. 2-3.  2001: “Michigan tobacco fees“, Sept. 19-20; “Tobacco-fee tensions” (Fla. resumes investing in tobacco cos.), Jun. 21 (& letter to editor, Jul. 6); “Missouri’s tagalong tobacco fees“, Jun. 5 (& Sept. 21, 2000); “‘Lungren now a paid advocate for his former foes’” (Calif.), Apr. 5; “(Another) ‘Monster Fee Award for Tobacco Fighters’” (Calif. cities and counties), Mar. 21-22; “Reclaiming the tobacco loot“, Mar. 15; “Lawyers get tobacco fees early“, Mar. 5; “Tobacco arbitrator: they all know whose side I’m on“, Feb. 16-19.  2000: “Beehive of legal activity: Utah tobacco fees“, Nov. 6; “South Carolina tobacco fees: how to farm money“, Oct. 25; “Gore amid friendly crowd (again)” (Fla.), Apr. 12 (& “Dershowitz’s Florida frolic?“, Jul. 17; also see Dec. 8-10, 2000, Aug. 8-9, 2000, Dec. 27-28, 1999); “Sooner get rich” (Oklahoma), Jun. 7; “‘Lawyers’ tobacco-suit fees invite revolt’” (Ohio), May 23; “North Carolina (& Kentucky & Tennessee) tobacco fees“, May 2; “Connecticut AG has ‘no idea’ whether lawyers he hired are overcharging“, Feb. 3 (& update Feb. 16); “Pennsylvania tobacco fees: such a bargain!“, Jan. 10 (& Oct. 24, 2002). 1999: “Maryland’s kingmaker” (Peter Angelos), Oct. 19 (& Dec. 9, 1999, Oct. 16-17, 2000, June 21, 2001, Apr. 10, 2002); “Illinois tobacco fees“, Oct. 16-17; “My dear old tobacco-fee friends” (Kansas AG, like Connecticut’s, gave tobacco business to her old law firm), Oct. 11 (see also Sept. 21, 2000); “Boardwalk bonanza” (N.J.), Oct. 1-3; “News judgment“, Aug. 6; “Puff, the magic fees” (Wisc.), Jul. 13. 

Tobacco-fee tycoons, 2003: “Class action lawyer takes $20 million from defendant’s side” (Joseph Rice), Mar. 15-16; “‘Not a pretty picture’“, Jan. 10-12; 2002: “Rumblings in Mississippi” (Scruggs, Minor), Oct. 9-10 (& Nov. 6); “Judge overturns $1.3 billion tobacco fee award” (Castano Group), Sept. 27-29.  2001: “Settle a dispute today” (O’Quinn vs. Jamail), Sept. 18; “Ness monster sighted in Narragansett Bay” (Rhode Island, Ness Motley), Jun. 7 (& see Oct. 6-9, 2000, July 17, 2000, Nov. 1, 1999). 2000: “Punch-outs, Florida style” (Robert Montgomery), Nov. 17-19 (& see Aug. 8, April 12, 2000; Aug. 21-22, 1999); “Friend to the famous” (Williams Bailey), Oct. 12; “Senator Lieberman: a sampler” (voted to curb tobacco fees), Aug. 8-9; “Trial lawyer candidates” (Minnesota’s Ciresi), Jul. 6 (& update Sept. 15-17; loses primary bid); “‘Lawyers’ tobacco-suit fees invite revolt’” (USA Today editorial), May 23.  1999: “Who’s afraid of Dickie Scruggs?“, Dec. 2; “Maryland’s kingmaker” (Peter Angelos), Oct. 19 (& Dec. 9, 1999, Oct. 16-17, 2000, June 21, 2001); “The Marie Antoinette school of public relations” (tobacco lawyers pose for photo shoot on their yachts, horse farms, etc.), Aug. 21-22; and see lawyers’ campaign contributions. 

Humor: “Dave Barry on tobacco settlement, round III“, Sept. 16-17, 2002; “Dave Barry on tobacco suits, round II“, March 16, 2000; “Dave Barry on federal tobacco suit“, Oct. 26, 1999; “Cartoon that made us laugh” (“….We can’t take those off the market! Dangerous products are a gold mine for the government!”), Jan. 21-23, 2000.
.
Terms of state tobacco settlement, 2003: “Appeals bonds, again“, Apr. 2-3. 2002: “We did it all for the public health, cont’d” (Alabama devotes more proceeds to tobacco farmers than to smoking reduction), Aug. 22; “Tobacco settlement funds go to tobacco promotion” (N.C.), Jun. 28-30;  “‘Bush budget surprise: $25M for tobacco suit’” (Martha Derthick, Up in Smoke), Feb. 20. 2001: “Tobacco-fee tensions” (Fla. resumes investing in tobacco cos.), Jun. 21 (& letter to editor, Jul. 6); “Reclaiming the tobacco loot“, Mar. 15; “Push him into a bedroom, hand him a script” (Bill Clinton testimonial for tobacco lawyers), Mar. 9-11; “Lawyers get tobacco fees early“, Mar. 5; “Tobacco arbitrator: they all know whose side I’m on“, Feb. 16-19; “Safer smokes vs. the settlement cartel“, Feb. 7-8.  2000: “Missouri tobacco fees“, Sept. 21, 2000; “Tobacco- and gun-suit reading” (Stuart Taylor, Jr.), Aug. 21-22, 2000; “Challenging the multistate settlement“, Jul. 17, 2000.  1999: “‘Few Settlement Dollars Used for Tobacco Control’“, Dec. 27-28; “Tobacco bankruptcies, and what comes after” (state gov’ts, trial lawyers would become cigarette producers), Dec. 13; “How the tobacco settlement works” (the more cigarettes sold, the more money states get), Nov. 2; “Addictive tobacco money” (states sued over alleged burden on their taxpayers — so are they using the proceeds to cut taxes?), Sept. 7; “Collusion: it’s an AG thing” (terms of settlement cartelize cigarette industry), Jul. 29. Also see Walter Olson, “Puff, the magic settlement“, Reason, Jan. 2000. 

“‘Tough tobacco laws may not deter kids’“, Jun. 7-9, 2002; “Blind newsdealer charged with selling cigarettes to underage buyer“, Sept. 16, 1999.

“Sin-suit city” (Banzhaf), Jun. 10, 2002. 

“Ad model sues tobacco company“, May 1-2, 2002. 

“Australian party calls for banning smoking while driving“, Jun. 3-4, 2002; “‘Positive nicotine test to keep student from prom’” (over-18 student, off-premises consumption), Apr. 26-28, 2002 (& update May 10-12: school backs down); “Judge orders woman to stop smoking at home“, Mar. 27-28, 2002; “‘Smokers told to fetter their fumes’” (smoking in homes that bothers neighbors), Nov. 26, 2001; “Utah lawmakers: don’t smoke in your car” (when kids present), Oct. 5-7, 2001; “Apartment smoking targeted“, Jan. 3, 2000. 

“Australian party calls for banning smoking while driving“, Jun. 3-4, 2002 (document retention case); “International tobacco suits: not quite such easy pickings“, Feb. 1-3, 2002; “‘Saudi Arabia finally gets tough on terrorism!’“, Dec. 10, 2001; “More from Judge Kent” (Bolivian suit), Aug. 3, 2001; “Smoker’s suit nixed in Norway“, Dec. 18-19, 2000; “They call it distributive justice” (government of Saudi Arabia sues tobacco cos.), Nov. 16, 2000; “Spreading to Australia?“, Dec. 29-30, 1999; “Israeli court rejects cigarette reimbursement suit“, Oct. 7, 1999. 

“Veeps ATLA could love” (Durbin, D-Ill., as guardian of tobacco lawyers’ fees), July 7, 2000 (& see Apr. 25, 2002). 

“Competing interests: none declared”.  “The unconflicted Prof. Daynard“, April 21-23, 2000 (& update: letters, Jan. 2001, June 2001; Aug. 2, Dec. 17, 2001). 

Federal tobacco suit: our views: “‘Bush budget surprise: $25M for tobacco suit’“, Feb. 20, 2002; “Judge throws out half of federal tobacco suit“, October 2, 2000; “Good news out of Washington…” (House votes to cut off funding for suit), June 21, 2000 (& update June 26: action reversed, funds approved); “Feds: dissent on smoking = racketeering“, Sept. 23, 1999; “Guest column in Forbes by Overlawyered.com‘s editor“, Oct. 25, 1999. 

“Prison litigation: ‘Kittens and Rainbows Suites’” (cellmate’s smoking violates rights), Jan. 11-13, 2002. 

Boeken v. Philip Morris: “Boeken record“, June 19, 2001; “$5,133.47 a cigarette“, Jun. 11, 2001; “Tobacco plunder in Los Angeles” ($3 billion damage award), Jun. 8-10, 2001. 

Federal tobacco suit: others’ views: “Columnist-fest” (Jacob Sullum), Jun. 22-24, 2001; “Blatant end-runs around the democratic process” (former Labor Secretary Robert Reich), Jan. 15-16, 2000; “Dave Barry on federal tobacco suit” (plus novelist Tom Clancy’s critique), Oct. 26, 1999; “‘This wretched lawsuit’” (Jonathan Rauch in National Journal ), Oct. 13, 1999; “Feds’ tobacco shakedown: ‘A case of fraud’“, Sept. 29, 1999 (roundup of editorial pages); “Feds as tobacco pushers” (columnist Andrew Glass recalls encouragement of smoking in U.S. Army), Sept. 24, 1999; “Hurry up, before the spell breaks” (leading plaintiff’s lawyer wants feds to sue fast since public losing interest), Sept. 24, 1999.

Regulation by litigation: “Tobacco- and gun-suit reading” (law prof Michael Krauss), Aug. 21-22, 2000; “Convenient line at the time” (tobacco is unique, said state attorneys general — sure), May 15; “Stuart Taylor, Jr., on Smith & Wesson deal” (“Guns and Tobacco: Government by Litigation”), Apr. 11, 2000; “Arbitrary confiscation, from Pskov to Pascagoula” (Michael Barone in U.S. News on threat to rule of law), Jul. 24-25, 1999; “Guns, tobacco, and others to come” (Peter Huber in Commentary on the new mass-tort cases as “show trials”), Jul. 20; “‘A de facto fourth branch of government’” (prominent trial lawyer Wendell Gauthier’s view of plaintiff bar’s role), Jul. 4, 1999. 

“Dewey deserve that much?“, Mar. 6, 2002; “Health plans rebuffed in bid to sue cigarette makers“, Jan. 11, 2000. 

“Terrorists, American business execs compared“, Sept. 28-30, 2001. 

“Columnist-fest“, Jun. 22-24, 2001 (Amity Shlaes on asbestos synergy case); “Best little forum-shopping in Texas” (state’s Medicaid suit got filed in Texarkana, contributing $6.1 million to local economy), Aug. 27, 1999. 

“The Kessler agenda” (former FDA chief calls for cigarette ban), Jan. 12-14, 2001; “Kessler rebuked” (FDA claim of authority over tobacco), March 27, 2000. 

“Updates” (baby Castano suit nixed in N.Y.), Dec. 26-29, 2000. 

“Wal-Mart’s tobacco exposure“, Sept. 25-26, 2000; “The Wal-Mart docket” (sued over tobacco sales), July 7, 2000.

“Another billion, snuffed” (antitrust lawsuit between snuffmakers), May 10, 2000. 

“Hollywood special: ‘The Insider’“, Mar. 30, 2000. 

“Because they still had money” (Hausfeld’s price-fixing suit), Mar. 2, 2000. 

“Tobacco lawyers’ lien leverage“, Feb. 29, 2000. 

“Feds’ tobacco hypocrisy, cont’d: Indian ‘smoke shops’“, Jan. 25, 2000; “Do as we say, please” (Indian tribes, after profiting immensely from tax-free smoke shops, turn around and sue suppliers), Jul. 14, 1999. 

“The joy of tobacco fees“, Jan. 20, 2000.

“Calif. state funds used to compile ‘enemies list’“, Jan. 5, 2000.

“‘Trial lawyers on trial’” (Trevor Armbrister, Reader’s Digest), Dec. 23-26, 1999.

“Philadelphia Inquirer Tech.life: ‘Web Winners’” (this page is recommended), Dec. 15, 1999.

“Ohio tobacco-settlement booty“, Nov. 8, 1999.

“Public by 2-1 margin disapproves of tobacco suits“, Nov. 5-7, 1999. 

“Not-so-Kool omen for NAACP suit“, Nov. 1, 1999. 

“Minnesota to auction seized cigarettes“, Oct. 21, 1999. 

“Reform stirrings on public contingency fees“, Oct. 15, 1999.

“Big guns” (tobacco example shaped gun litigation), Oct. 5-6, 1999.

“Plus extra damages for having argued with us” (“lesson of tobacco”: you can get punished for defending your product), Aug. 19, 1999. 

“‘Settlement bonds’: are guns next?” (how Wall Street finances expropriation of industries), Aug. 5, 1999.

Do the tobacco wars that began in the mid-1990s represent an unprecedented triumph for public health?  Are they an inevitable response to legislative gridlock on smoking policy?  Or are they our legal system’s own updated version of the Gilded Age scandals that brought American government into disrepute a century ago, siphoning billions of dollars of publicly obtained money into the hands of politically connected attorneys?  Commentaries on Overlawyered.com (above) may help you decide.  In the mean time, the following links offer a way into the wider tobacco controversy: 

Anti-tobacco groups, most of which are supportive of litigation as well as other coercive government actions aimed at curtailing tobacco sale and use, are well represented on the web.  They include Tobacco.org, federally funded antitobacco activist Stanton Glantz’s Tobacco Control Archives, Americans for Non-Smokers’ Rights, Action on Smoking and Health, and the American Council on Science and Health. Tobacco.org’s links list is especially comprehensive. The empire associated with Prof. Richard Daynard, participant in tobacco suits, oft-quoted expert, and professor at Northeastern U., includes the Tobacco Products Liability Project and Tobacco Control Resource Center, as well as the State Tobacco Information Center.  The Castano Group, a vast joint venture of trial lawyers cooperating to file tobacco class actions, maintains a website that is distinctly uninformative (unless you’re a lawyer/member or a cooperative pressie).

Relatively neutral sites include Yahoo Full Coverage.

Critics of the anti-tobacco crusade often note that it curtails individual liberty, freedom of contract and freedom of association.  As part of its Breaking Issues series (“Fining Smokers“), Reason magazine includes a list of online articles skeptical of the government’s role in the tobacco field, while Reason senior editor Jacob Sullum is the author of 1998’s For Your Own Good : The Anti-Smoking Crusade and the Tyranny of Public Health.  At the libertarian-oriented Cato Institute, Robert Levy has criticized “The Tobacco Wars“, written that “States Share Blame for Tobacco Lawyers’ Greed“, and called tobacco settlements “Dangerous to Your Liberty“; the state Medicaid suits, he argues, are “Snuffing Out the Rule of Law“. Cato’s Jerry Taylor describes the battle as “The Pickpocket State vs. Tobacco“. “The Anti-Tobacco Crusade” by Joseph Kellard, Capitalism magazine, March 1998, argues from a viewpoint supportive of Ayn Rand’s Objectivism. In Colorado, the Independence Institute maintains a Center for Personal Freedom run by Linda Gorman which draws the connection to other paternalist crusades on issues like drinking, seatbelt use and mandatory helmet laws.  The Heritage Foundation’s Todd Gaziano makes the case that a proposed federal lawsuit against tobacco companies is “elevating politics over law” (July 30, 1999 Backgrounder).  Overlawyered.com‘s editor has taken exception to the retroactivity of the crusade, to its manipulative treatment of children, and to the hardball or demagogic tactics used in the Castano and Engle cases. Rep. Chris Cox (R-Calif.) delivered a notable critique of the tobacco litigation at a Congressional hearing held Dec. 10, 1997 (no longer online).

An extensive site offering an aggressive defense of smoking and smokers, along with a large collection of links, is Forces International (“Fight Ordinances and Restrictions to Control and Eliminate Smoking”).

Filed under: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Archived gun items, pre-July 2003

“Gun lawsuit columns“, Apr. 25-27, 2003; “Gun lawsuit preemption moves forward“, Apr. 4-6; “Gun-suit thoughts“, Mar. 31, 2003; “House bill would cut off municipal gun suits“, May 9, 2002. 

NAACP suits: “Update” (jury votes against liability), Jun. 2, 2003; “Gun lawsuit columns“, Apr. 25-27; “Gun-suit thoughts“, Mar. 31; “Stalking horse for anti-gun litigators“, Mar. 24, 2003; “NAACP’s ‘ludicrous’ anti-gun suit” (David Horowitz in Salon), Aug. 19, 1999; “Not-so-Kool omen for NAACP suit” (racial claims fail in tobacco case), Nov. 1, 1999; “Connecticut, sue thyself” (NAACP official, while state official, subsidized gunmaking), Dec. 2, 1999.  Also see letters to the editor, “NAACP lawsuits take bad aim“, Detroit Free Press, Jul. 20, 1999 (& see update Jul. 30, 2003: judge dismisses lawsuit). 

“More notices for The Rule of Lawyers” (NRA’s LaPierre praises book), Mar. 21-23, 2003 (& Apr. 25-27).

“Manufacturer sued after bullet fails to take down lion“, Apr. 25-27, 2003.

“Florida school shooting: the deep pockets did it” (Grunow), Dec. 13-15, 2002 (& update Feb. 4-5).

“Spitzer riding high” (New York attorney general), Jun. 17-18, 2002. 

Municipal cases crash and burn, 2002: “‘Gunning for manufacturers through courts’” (Boston drops its case), Apr. 29-30; “Third Circuit nixes Philly gun suits“, Jan. 28-29.  2001: “Municipal gun suits on the run” (Camden, Atlanta, Bridgeport’s Ganim), Nov. 19-20; “Victory (again) in Connecticut” (Bridgeport), Oct. 3-4 (& Dec. 11-12, 1999); “‘New York State’s Gun Suit Must Be Dismissed’“, Aug. 22-23; “Columnist-fest” (Jacob Sullum), June 22-24; “Victory in Albany” (Miami, New Orleans, etc.), April 27-29.  2000: “Victory in Philadelphia“, Dec. 22-25; “Victory in Chicago“, Sept. 20; “‘City gun suit shot down on appeal’” (Cincinnati), Aug. 16-17 (& Oct. 8, 1999).  1999: “Victory in Florida” (Miami), Dec. 14 (& Nov. 20-21). 

“‘Gunning for manufacturers through courts’” (proposed NYC ordinance), Apr. 29-30, 2002. 

Commentaries by others, 2002: “Columnist-fest” (Dave Kopel, Jacob Sullum), Mar. 18.  2001: “Municipal gun suits on the run” (Peter Schuck, Kimberley Strassel), Nov. 19-20; “Columnist-fest” (Sullum), June 22-24; “City gun suits: ‘extortion parading as law’” (Robert Levy), May 14. 2000: “Tobacco- and gun-suit reading” (Michael Krauss), Aug. 21-22; “Steady aim” (Vince Carroll, Sam Smith), May 12; “Columnist-fest” (Sullum), May 2; “Stuart Taylor, Jr., on Smith & Wesson deal“, April 11; “Blatant end-runs around the democratic process” (Robert Reich), Jan. 15-16. 1999: “Weekend reading: evergreens” (Bruce Kobayashi), Oct. 23-24; “Arbitrary confiscation, from Pskov to Pascagoula” (Michael Barone), July 24-25; “Guns, tobacco, and others to come” (Peter Huber), July 20; “‘Anti-democratic, wrong, a feel-good solution‘” (editorials), July 3. 

“Under the Christmas tree” (BB guns, toy soldiers), Dec. 21-23, 2001 (& see Feb. 11-12, 2002). 

“State of prosecution in Iowa” (bullet possession), Jan. 28-29, 2002. 

“‘FTC Taking “Seriously” Request to Probe Firearms Sites’” (unlawful to recommend guns for family security?), Jan. 16-17, 2002. 

“‘North America’s most dangerous mammal’” (deer), Nov. 29, 2001. 

“Gun controllers on the defensive“, Nov. 6, 2001. 

“‘Shooting range sued over suicide’“, Sept. 27, 2001; “$3 million verdict for selling gun used in suicide“, Sept. 17, 2001; “‘Suicide-Attempt Survivor Sues’” (department that issued cop his gun), Jan. 24-25, 2001. 

“The high cost of cultural passivity“, Sept. 21-23, 2001; “Self-defense for flight crews“, Sept. 13, 2001. 

“Self-defense: an American tradition” (Bellesiles furor), Sept. 12, 2001. 

“Navegar not nailed“, Aug. 15, 2001; “Victory in California” (Navegar), Aug. 7-8, 2001; “Weekend reading: evergreens” (Bruce Kobayashi), Oct. 23-24, 1999.

“Victory in Albany” (Hamilton v. Accu-Tek), April 27-29, 2001.

“Letter to the editor” (activist doctors vs. gun ownership), May 18, 2001. 

“Non-gun control” (toy guns; bottles and glasses), March 23-25. 

“$3 million verdict for selling gun used in suicide“, Sept. 17, 2001; “Vicarious criminal liability?” (individual who sold gun prosecuted after remote purchaser used it to commit murder), Dec. 8-10, 2000. 

“Promising areas for suits” (suits against families after firearms injuries), Dec. 7, 2000. 

“‘Gunshot wounds down almost 40 percent’“, Oct. 10, 2000. 

“For Philly, gun lawsuits just the beginning” (city intends to sue other businesses), Oct. 5, 2000. 

Effects on gunmakers: “Victory in Chicago” (dealers under pressure as liability insurance dries up), Sept. 20, 2000; “One gunmaker’s story” (Freedom Arms), June 14-15; “Gun-buying rush“, Jan. 4, 2000; “Victory in Florida” (lawyers using cost infliction as tactic), Dec. 14, 1999; “Gun jihad menaces national security” (small arms industry is important defense supplier), Nov. 9; “Skittish Colt” (not abandoning consumer market, says gunmaker), Nov. 18-19; “Proud history to end?” (Colt’s retreating from consumer handgun business), Oct. 12; Gunmaker bankruptcies: three, and counting“, Sept. 14, 1999. 

“Senator Lieberman: a sampler” (opposed firearms lawsuits in D.C. in 1992), Aug. 8-9, 2000; “Veeps ATLA could love” (Durkin, D-Ill., sponsor of gun-suit bill), July 7, 2000. 

“Our most ominous export” (U.S. trial lawyers help launch anti-gunmaker suit in Brazil), July 31, 2000. 

“‘Poll: majority disapprove of tobacco fine’” (survey finds public against gun suits 67 to 28 percent), July 24-25, 2000. 

“Giuliani’s blatant forum-shopping“, June 28, 2000; “…bad news out of New York” (city joins gun suits), June 21, 2000. 

“The Wal-Mart docket” (sued over gun sales), July 7, 2000.

Parodies, cartoons: “Animated advocacy” (“smart guns” interactive game, etc.), June 16-18, 2000; “Cartoon that made us laugh” (“….We can’t take those off the market! Dangerous products are a gold mine for the gov’t!”), Jan. 21-23; “Power tools: America’s children at risk” (parody site taken seriously), Dec. 7, 1999.

“Rewarded with the bench” (judicial nomination for Connecticut AG Richard Blumenthal?), June 12, 2000; “Punished for resistance“, March 31-April 2; “Connecticut, sue thyself” (state officials, NAACP), Dec. 2, 1999.

Smith & Wesson settlement: “Victory in Albany” (see notes), April 27-29, 2001; “A Smith & Wesson FAQ“, May 18-21, 2000; “Not with our lives you don’t“, May 9; “Columnist-fest” (Jacob Sullum), May 2; “Police resent political gun-buying influence“, April 14-16; “Stuart Taylor, Jr., on Smith & Wesson deal“, April 11; “Punished for resistance“, March 31-April 2; “Another S&W thing“, March 27; “Social engineering by lawsuit” (Yale law professor Peter Schuck doubts S&W would have lost at trial), March 27; “Smith & Wesson’s ‘voluntary’ capitulation’“, March 21; “Liberty no longer insured by Smith & Wesson“, March 20, 2000. 

“Not my fault, II” (19-year-old sues gunmaker, own father over accidental shooting 14 years earlier), May 17, 2000. 

“Not with our lives you don’t” (gun-suit issue figures in Presidential race; Clinton, trial lawyers endorse gun control event), May 9, 2000. 

Police line-of-duty: “Not with our lives you don’t“, May 9, 2000; “Police resent political gun-buying influence“, April 14-16; “Cops shoot civilian; city blames maker of victim’s gun“, April 12, 2000; “Zone of blame” (policeman’s widow sues maker of his gun), Oct. 27, 1999. 

“Barrel pointing backward” (lawsuits and “smart guns”), Feb. 17, 2000; update, March 8. 

“Improvements to our gun-litigation page“, Feb. 14, 2000; “Gun litigation roundup“, Feb. 10-11, 2000. 

HUD: “Cuomo menaces gun makers: ‘death by a thousand cuts“, Feb. 2, 2000; “Feds’ tobacco hypocrisy: Indian ‘smoke shops’“, Jan. 25, 2000; “Gun lawsuits: White House, HUD pile on“, Dec. 9, 1999. 

“Fourth Branch”?: “Steady aim“, May 12, 2000; “Judge to lawyers in Miami gun suit: you’re trying to ban ’em, right?” (anti-democratic quotes from anti-gun side), Nov. 20-21, 1999; “Gun litigation: a helpful brother-in-law” (Hugh Rodham surfaces assisting gun lawyers), Oct. 25, 1999; “Reform stirrings on public contingency fees“, Oct. 15; “Big guns” (origins of municipal litigation), Oct. 5-6; “Like calling the Orkin man to talk about bugs” (American Bar Ass’n president compares gun suits to civil rights crusade), August 10; “‘A de facto fourth branch of government‘” (Wendell Gauthier’s view of trial lawyers’ role), July 4, 1999. 

Hypocrisy of municipal plaintiffs: “Do as we say, please” (big cities suing gun makers sell lots of surplus guns themselves), July 14, 1999; “Do as we say (II): gun-suit hypocrisy in Detroit“, August 30, 1999; “Gun-suit hypocrisy, Boston style” (city admits it didn’t follow own procedures in selling guns), August 25, 1999; “Connecticut, sue thyself” (state officials, NAACP), Dec. 2, 1999. 

Philanthropies back anti-gun litigation: “Charity dollars support trial lawyers’ gun jihad“, Sept. 2, 1999; “Correction: the difference one letter makes” (YWCA, not YMCA, supports anti-gun efforts), Nov. 10; “Soros as bully” (“Open Society” philanthropist), Nov. 23, 1999. 

“Recommended reading” (Lingua Franca on Second Amendment controversy in law schools), Jan. 25, 2000; “‘Scholar’s shift in thinking angers liberals’” (Larry Tribe says Second Amd’t does include individual right), Aug. 30, 1999. 

“Fertilizer manufacturers not liable for World Trade Center bombing” (theories against them resembled those used against gunmakers), Aug. 23, 1999.

“‘Settlement bonds’: are guns next?” (Wall Street maneuvering to float bonds based on expropriation of gun industry), Aug. 5, 1999.

“Censorship via (novel) lawsuit” (lawyers suing gunmakers, Hollywood claim their theories are “traditional” and “time-honored”), Jul. 22, 1999.


Related commentary: “zero-tolerance” weapons policies

2002: “‘No scissors allowed at ribbon-cutting ceremony at Pittsburgh airport’“, Sept. 23; “Steak knives, finger ‘guns’“, May 16; “Goodbye to zero tolerance?“, Jan. 25-27. 

2001: “Under the Christmas tree” (BB guns, toy soldiers), Dec. 21-23; “John Leo on Overlawyered.com“, Aug. 15; “Bagpiper prom garb” (skean dubh knife), June 21; “Drawing pictures of weapons” (also U.K. pellet gun case), May 15; “Zero tolerance spiral” (roundup), April 12; “Non-gun control” (second-graders’ paper gun), March 23-25; “ABA criticizes zero tolerance” (knife cases), Feb. 21-22; “Pointing chicken finger“, Feb. 2-4; “Gun-shaped medallion“, Jan. 18. 

2000: “Tweety bird chain” (also African tribal knives case), Sept. 29-Oct. 1 (& update Oct. 4); “Kopel on zero-tolerance policies“, Sept. 25-26; “‘NZ kids get ‘license’ to play with toy guns’“, Sept. 8-10; “Ease up on kids” (Utah), Aug. 4-7; “Annals of zero tolerance” (finger guns, inadvertent steak knife in lunch bag), May 22; “Kindergartners’ ‘bang, you’re dead’“, April 17; “Don’t play James Bond” (fifth grader’s plastic toy gun), March 28; “Annals of zero tolerance: scissors, teacher’s beer“, March 15. 

1999: “Weekend reading: columnist-fest” (John Leo column), Dec. 11-12; “Scissors, toy-gun cases“, Dec. 8; “Annals of zero tolerance: the fateful thumb“, Nov. 20-21; “Annals of zero tolerance: more nail clippers cases“, Nov. 10; “Annals of zero tolerance: cannon shots banned” (school disallows yearbook photo posed on artillery), Oct. 30-31 (update Nov. 26-28: school relents); “Zero tolerance strikes again” (student suspended after using knife to cut cake), Oct. 23-24.

——————————————————————————–

Other resources on gun lawsuits: 

List (compiled by Prof. Eugene Volokh, UCLA Law School) of law professors skeptical of firearms suits (subcategories: municipal lawsuits, firearms torts generally). 

“Suing Gun Makers” (Reason magazine “Breaking Issues” series).

Walter Olson, “Plaintiff’s Lawyers Take Aim at Democracy“, Wall Street Journal, March 21, 2000; “Big Guns“, Reason, Oct. 1999; “Firing Squad” (federalism and gun suits), Reason, May 1999. 

National Center for Policy Analysis, “Suing Gun Manufacturers: Hazardous to Our Health“. 

American Lawyer on origins of the municipal firearms litigation, June 1999. 

American Shooting Sports Coalition, “Gun Rights: Under the Gavel“.

Guncite.com links on firearms litigation

Also see resources on product liability / on personal responsibility

Filed under: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,