Gender: Female
Industry: Law
Age: Unknown
Location: Undisclosed

396 matches |  296-300 displayed

1  56 57 58 59 60  80

---

E.coli Spinach: The Revenge!

As the FDA continues its search for the source of what BBC News describes (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/5367048.st m) as "the rogue spinach," which caused one E.coli-related death and 146 illnesses, the legal community has begun girding its loins for spinach-y class action. 

Prominent, of course, is the family of the woman who died; the case is being handled by Marler Clark, the Seattle law firm which makes rather a specialty of E.coli cases - more than a thousand since 1993.  (http://cbs2.com/topstories/local_story_2581808 23.html)  The firm's also handling the cases of a couple suing Dole (http://www.todaystmj4.com/_content/news/topsto ries/story_4383.asp), and a mother and young son going after Natural Selection Foods.  (http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,65019182 6,00.html)

But the suits aren't limited to personal injury, as Plantiff's Lawyer Blog (http://internetandclassactionlaw.blogspot.com/ 2006/09/class-action-lawsuit-filed-over-ecoli.html) observes: a restaurant in Illinois is also suing Natural Selection for the spinach it was obliged to throw out, alleging that the "“Defendant’s conduct was so outrageous as to constitute ill will, bad motive and reckless indifference to the interests of the purchases of spinach.”

I could make a Popeye joke here, but I'm not quite that desperate for humor.  I'll just observe that the words "reckless" and "purchases of spinach" probably have never been used together before outside of a cartoon format.  That and "rogue spinach" warmed my dark, incongruity-loving little heart today.  Just wanted to share.

09-22-2006

Post Comment

---

Thanks for your comment.

You know you've got a good debate going on a blog when the third comment reads, "I dispute every factual statement in your premise."  Oh, wait, no, that's how you know you've got a bad debate going.  But an entertaining one, nonetheless.

The comment in question came from a two line post over at Overlawyered. (http://www.overlawyered.com/2006/09/10_wacky_a irline_lawsuits.html) More of a link than a post, really, pointing to an MSNBC article titled "10 Wacky Airline Lawsuits." 

Now, as a rule of thumb, the Judge doesn't normally expect any articles starting with "10," "50" or "100" to be very substantive; the second word is too likely to be "Greatest" or "Lamest" and generally we're looking at the kind of thing you read at a party when you really can't face your ex over by the bar and have drunkenly decided to annoy the hell out of the rest of the attendees by camping out in the bathroom.  Or something.  The addition of the word "wacky" only strengthens this idea by adding a note of "Reader's Digest" or possibly "I Love Lucy."

But instead of letting the article go by with a ungraceful gigglesnort, someone had to bring up tort reform and its use of goofy poster child cases.  And use three sets of unnecessary quotation marks in the first sentence.  And we're off, with a series of snarky vocabulary-ridden comments slagging off on that first commentor, to the point where they begin casting aspersions on each other's funding.

I think my favorite line, for sheer wordy understatement, is "I think we may disagree about the strength of each other's various legal analyses."

09-21-2006

Post Comment

---

Fighting censorship in movies, pachyderm painting

Boingboing.com reports today on what looks like an interesting movie about the MPAA movie ratings and how they're generated.  (http://www.boingboing.net/2006/09/16/this_film _is_not_rat.html)  Naturally, the best way to convey a message of hypocrisy in pop culture and corporate exploitation is by having a naked woman's backside on the poster.

Also on Boingboing, the controversy rages over whether an elephant is pink, red-and-gold flocked, or au natural. 
(http://www.boingboing.net/2006/09/16/people_pr etty_pissed.html)  Actually, the main controversy is over whether it's acceptable for grafitti artist Banksy to have painted the elephant at all, or put her in his downtown LA warehouse show. 

It's not the first time there's been a fuss over Banksy using decorated animals in his shows - in one of Banksy's exhibits in 2003, an animal rights activist attached herself by the neck with a bike lock to the pen where a couple of spray-painted cows were being held.  (http://www.banksy.co.uk/cuttings/hackney-gazet te.html)

Strangely, there's somewhat less objection to the plight of the cockroaches the same show had in a clear plastic case, crawling over the modified versions Paris Hilton's CDs.  (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/53104 16.stm) 

Maybe it's because Banksy is famous enough these days that people have started to regard him as somehow mainstream, but I also haven't noticed a lot of people taking note in this debate of the fact that the man is, in fact, a graffiti artist who's wanted in several countries.  It's not as though he's been funded by the NEA.  (Quick, name me an artist who is.) 

Which isn't to say that he shouldn't still be ethical in his treatment of animals, but people getting worked up over a weekend-long exhibit done with the approval of all relevent animal protection agencies in a country which allows quite an extensive list of animal testing procedures - not to mention the conditions on cattle farms, etc etc etc and I'm sure you've all read "Fast Food Nation" or would claim to have read it at a cocktail party - is a fairly good example of the kind of "it's only an important issue if it's new and shiny" thinking and reporting Banksy's targeting. 

09-18-2006

Post Comment

---

It's probably too much to hope for good taste in 9/11 coverage, but...

Anyone else find this more than usually offensive?

http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/09/07/911.pipeline/


As part of its coverage of the fifth anniversary of 9/11, CNN Pipeline will stream CNN's television coverage of September 11, 2001, in real time, as the events of the day unfolded.

The free replay on Monday will begin at 8:30 a.m. ET, minutes before the first plane hit the World Trade Center in New York.


I suppose we should just be grateful they're not doing it live on TV, causing people to panic and think that there've been new attacks.

09-08-2006

Post Comment

---

Serious discussion. Disregard at will.

As you all know, the Judge has a weekly column over at LawCrossing in which she talks about…well, basically the same stuff she talks about here, minus the goofy time-wasting links.  (That is, the links which are meant to be goofy wastes of time.)  In response to the last (https://www.lawcrossing.com/article/index.php? id=1899), she received this response from one of the bloggers mentioned:

You're no doubt right that it would be naive to expect ad campaigns to be completely honest (although there are truth-in-advertising laws you doubtless know more about than I do). I think the issue with the kind of astroturfing I may have (and others definitely have) experienced is that *you don't know it's an ad campaign.* The fellow involved didn't state who he worked for, or whether he or his company had "money on" the political fight involved, so to speak. That's potentially deceptive and destructive; a photo of a crowd at a rally looks very different depending on whether you know the crowd was paid to be there or not. I agree with you about legal regulation in general; exposure/ ridicule/ sunshine is best, although it may be important to require *reporting* of some kinds of overtly political astroturfing to the FEC or other agencies. But as you note, it can be harder for big time blogs than for little ones like mine to monitor the torrent of visits they get.

After blinking for a moment or two, thinking, “You mean people actually read those articles?  Good lord,” the Judge wrote back, explaining that she does, in fact, disapprove strongly of astroturfing and would, in fact, be one of those starry-eyed idealists who thinks the blogosphere shouldn’t be allowed to be manipulated in the same way as commercial media.  Trouble is, it’s pretty hard to stop, and I’m just enough of a cynic to doubt that’s possible sometimes, and the big, influential blogs are likely to take in the information given by the smaller like mercury in swordfish.  (Not that I mean to say large bloggers actually devour their smaller, guppy-like brethren.  You know what I mean.)  But hopefully the same process works both ways, and when the smaller sources rant and rave – or point and laugh – the larger ones will pick it up and do the same.

09-06-2006

Post Comment

---

396 matches |  296-300 displayed

1  56 57 58 59 60  80

Judged Blog

Blog Title

Blog Description

Blog Date