The pseudonymous “Mindles H. Dreck” at Asymmetrical Information has some comments (Jan. 28) on Judge Norgle’s dismissal of the slavery reparations lawsuit (see Jan. 26)(documents at site of defendant Aetna). What criteria, he wonders, dictated the selection of banks, railroads, tobacco and insurance companies to be sued in the case? “1. A continuous history — who ever thought avoiding the M&A craze would be a liability? 2. Availability of records — one Historical Society officer noted to me that corporations have reconsidered or requested the return of donated archives since the suit.” Deep pockets, of course. And finally: “Defendants have to be vulnerable to PR damage.” This last point suggests why reparations advocates may not unreasonably imagine there is potential money to be made in pursuing more rounds of suits even if courts never rule in their favor.
Posts Tagged ‘tobacco’
One reparations suit down
…with many more, we fear, yet to come: “A federal judge today dismissed a lawsuit brought by descendants of slaves from across the country seeking reparations from corporations they say profited from the forced labor of their ancestors before the Civil War.” U.S. District Judge Charles Norgle cited the political-question doctrine, said the plaintiffs had failed to overcome statute of limitation questions, and “said the suit alleged no specific connection between the plaintiffs and the banks, tobacco companies, railroads and other companies named as defendants.” (Mike Robinson, “Judge dismisses slave reparations suit”, AP/Chicago Tribune, Jan. 26) FrontPage has a timely article on the suit (Curtis Lawrence, “The Reparations Lobby Sues Again”, Jan. 25). Plus: Prof. Bainbridge, much quoted here of late, has more (Jan. 27)
Daschle does the trial-lawyer hop
A Senate Minority Leader’s gotta drum up money, after all: he popped down to Jacksonville last Thursday for a fund-raiser hosted by plaintiff’s lawyer Wayne Hogan, part of the $3.4-billion-in-fees Florida tobacco team (see Apr. 12, 2000), and then yesterday attended an event at the Providence, R.I., home of Ness Motley’s Jack McConnell (see Jun. 7, 2001) (David DeCamp, “Party not big on bid from Weinstein”, Jacksonville Times-Union, Dec. 15; Liz Anderson, Scott MacKay and Katherine Gregg, “State House’s quick Thanksgiving food drive is no turkey”, Providence Journal, Dec. 1) (hat tip: South Dakota Politics blog)
Around the blogs
Beth Plocharczyk of Crescat Sententia responds (Dec. 15) to Dr. Kurt Kooyer’s Calvin College memoir on medical liability, recently referenced in this space, and takes issue with Kooyer’s assertion that the obligations of the medical profession toward patients are necessarily of a “covenantal” rather than contractual nature. David Giacalone (Dec. 15) notes that a star witness has emerged to support the state of Massachusetts in its dispute with law firm Brown Rudnick over $2 billion in tobacco fees (see Nov. 4): none other than Thomas Sobol, who served at Brown Rudnick as lead attorney on the state’s case, later departed, and now has testified that it would be “absolutely, clearly excessive” for his former firm to pocket the higher sum. Brian Sack (“Banterist”), provoked by a CBS “60 Minutes” segment (Dec. 8), wonders whether the courts will really award money to complainants who say they couldn’t get jobs at Abercrombie & Fitch because they weren’t “pretty enough” or “All-American enough” (see Dec. 26-28, 2000). (Update Nov. 17, 2004: Abercrombie settles three cases for nearly $50 million.) Professor Bainbridge (Dec. 5, Dec. 11, Dec. 15, Dec. 16) has been hammering away at New York Attorney General Eliot Spitzer for using prosecutorial negotiations to induce mutual fund companies to lower their fees: “Spitzer has no authority — none, nada, zilch — to regulate mutual fund fees. Spitzer’s use of his leverage to extort a reduction in fees is a gross abuse of discretion.” And Curmudgeonly Clerk (Dec. 14) documents the latest adventures of anti-videogame attorney Jack Thompson, already much chronicled in this space (see Sept. 26).
NYC: tickets for ashtrays
Since Nurse Bloomberg’s crackdown on smoking (see our article of Oct. 22, 2002), New York City has issued more than 200 tickets to businesses found with ashtrays on their premises, including some found in areas not accessible to the public and even individual employees’ offices. “It doesn’t matter if it is used as a decoration, or to hold paper clips or M & M’s. No ashtrays are allowed, period.” (Clyde Haberman, “No Smoking, and Don’t Try Putting It Out”, New York Times, Dec. 2).
“Lawsuit alleges alcohol marketed to teens”
The lawsuit, which seeks class-action status, was filed by the Armonk, N.Y. firm of Boies Schiller & Flexner LLP and by “David Boies III, of the Fairfax, Va., law firm Straus & Boies,” who is the son of Boies Schiller’s David Boies (Nov. 6, earlier cites). Although it claims not to be (yet) a broad-scale assault on the liquor industry a la tobacco, the suit seeks to recover “unlawful profits” made by Coors, Heineken, Brown-Forman, Diageo, and others for such supposed atrocities as employing the Captain Morgan character to sell rum and advertising in rock music magazines. Also being sued is the trade association The Beer Institute. (AP/Salon, Nov. 26). As we noted in July, liquor companies “have been curiously absent from the list of targets of mass litigation campaigns in the U.S.A. in recent years; but see Mar. 22, 2000.”
Juan Non-Volokh notes (Nov. 28) that Miller Brewing Co., which has been a client of Boies, Schiller & Flexner in the past, “is not among the named defendants in the suit. … Boies claims this is because Miller is not one of the ‘more egregious’ actors in the industry”. Julian Sanchez (Reason “Hit and Run”, Nov. 28) discerns the ripple effects of anti-alcohol agitation by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation and other Safety Dry forces. Jim Leitzel (Nov. 19) takes note of a study suggesting that alcohol advertising probably does raise the rate of underage drinking. Professor Bainbridge (Nov. 28) has some thoughts on the regulation-through-litigation angle. Further: for more on the Neo-Drys, see Radley Balko, “Back Door To Prohibition”, Cato Policy Analysis #501, Dec. 5. (Update Feb. 16: second suit targets brewers).
Latest 17200 targets: drugmakers
Trial lawyers are hoping to turn California’s endlessly abused and abusive s. 17200 “unfair competition” law (Oct. 26, etc.) to rich new account by using it to sue pharmaceutical companies over a variety of marketing practices that the U.S. Congress and Food and Drug Administration have not seen fit to ban. The Ralph Nader operation is helping out, while the litigation effort is being handled by Seattle trial lawyer and tobacco-caper veteran Steve Berman of Hagens & Berman (see Sept. 9-10, 2002 and links from there). (Bernadette Tansey, “Citizens use law to pursue drug firms”, San Francisco Chronicle, Nov. 23; plaintiff’s site (“Prescription Access Litigation”). Update: see Point of Law, Nov. 8, 2004.
Hall of reciprocity
Welcome visitors from GruntDoc, “Ramblings of an Emergency Physician in Texas”, which has a pleasing graphically rendered blogroll as well as the expected reflections on medical and military matters. And Southern Appeal, “The random musings of a Southern Federalist and his co-conspirators”, notably including Prof. Michael DeBow of Samford U.’s Cumberland School of Law, who’s written some great stuff on the tobacco-Medicaid litigation. The site is also your one-stop resource for commentary supportive of the appeals court nomination of Alabama AG Bill Pryor. Speaking of such nominations, Prof. Bainbridge offers cogent thoughts about a much-criticized speech by appeals court nominee Janice Rogers Brown (Nov. 4; see Nov. 1) but did startle us several paragraphs before the end with a sudden rhetorical question about whether we personally at this site are “just wasting [our] time.” Alex Wellen, author of the much-talked-about new memoir Barman (relating his experiences as a graduate of a second-tier law school turned intellectual property litigator) has launched a new legal weblog in which he generously lists us among his “blog mentors”; when Wellen’s book tour took him to Manhattan we had a chance to meet and compare notes in person. And we got a great many visitors last week when Todd Dominey of Atlanta (WhatDoIKnow.org) called us “nice” and put us on his “Enjoying” list.
“German court rejects first smoking damages claim”
“‘The chamber justified its ruling on the grounds it was not clear the defendants had acted illegally or in a manner for which they could be held liable,’ the court said in a statement.” (Reuters, Nov. 14).
Norwegian edition
The Norwegian Supreme Court has held that tobacco companies are not responsible for a smoker’s death, because by 1964, smokers had widespread knowledge of the risks of smoking and could have chosen to quit. (Nina Berglund, “Family loses fight against tobacco firm”, Aftenposten, Oct. 31; Doug Mellgren, “Smoker’s lawsuit is rejected in Norway”, AP, Oct. 31). Lest you fear that Norway is a complete oasis of common sense, another Norwegian court has ordered the state to purchase an automobile for a 4’2″ individual who claims to have anxiety attacks at the thought of riding a bus. (Kaare M. Hansen and Nina Berglund, “State ordered to buy car for short man”, Aftenposten, Nov. 11).