Here is a e-book written by Judge Mark Painter in Ohio. The book is called “Legal Writing 201” and it contains 30 rules that will help you write for, not like, a judge. (That is what the sub-title says, I promise.)
Thanks for the lead from Appellate Law and Practice.
As I have mentioned in some past posts (the most recent one can be read here) the voters of Florida passed a constitutional amendment one year ago that severely limited the amount of attorneys’ fees in medical negligence actions. Lawyers who believed that a case was valid but who could not afford to prosecute it then asked clients if they would waive the fee cap and, presumably, had them execute a knowing, valid waiver.
Some lawyers with ties to the medical industry then asked the Florida Supreme Court to order that the Florida Bar adopt a ruling prohibiting such conduct.
The Florida Supreme Court ruled Wednesday. It held that an attorney must advise a potential client of the fee cap and that a client may knowingly and voluntarily waive the cap. It directed the Florida Bar to adopt appropriate rules. See the Order here.
One juror says that the jury was split 8-1 in the first federal Vioxx trial – for the defendant. Read more here.
Here is an article written by a trial consultant for defendants about how to minimize damages in significant cases.
Very interesting.
Thanks to David Swanner for telling us about it. I would recommend you check David’s blog every day; I do.
Some of you know that I have been involved in litigation against the Roman Catholic Diocese of Nashville for the past 6 years, suing it on behalf of two young men (and the mother of one) for outrageous conduct arising out of the abuse of the young men when they were teenagers.
The case was filed in January of 2000, lost on summary judgment in June 2001 shortly before trial, and lost again in the Tennessee Court of Appeals. The Tennessee Supreme Court reversed and remanded; read the opinion here.
The case was set again for trial March 13, 2006 and settled in the late afternoon on Saturday, December 10. Read about the settlement here.
Here is some interesting information on the realtionship between where people live and their tendancy to be involved who tend to be in car wrecks.
A sample: “People who live within one mile of a church are 10 percent less likely to have an accident resulting in a property damage claim than if they lived one more than one mile from the church.”
Ok – if you didn’t see Stewart poke a little fun at Ford Motor Company last night go to Crooks and Liars and watch the video.
Deaths caused by Tazers have been in the news in Nashville lately, and a products trial concerning the device has started in Arizona.
According to the article some 35 claims are pending against the company.
Read more here.
Here is an article that wraps up the first federal court Vioxx trial. The case will be re-tried in a few months.
One of the plaintiffs in this case (Kelly) was injured in a car wreck and had “soft tissue” injuries. The defense sought and was granted a Rule 35 examination by a doctor of its chosing. The doctor opined that the plaintiff “was magnifying her symptoms and neuropsychological testing/MMPI should be considered to assist in determining the level of symptom magnification.”
The defense asked for a neuropsych evaluation and the court granted it over plaintiff’s objection. Plaintiffs were permitted an interlocutory appeal.
Rule 35 examinations may be ordered for good cause shown when physical or mental condition has been put in controvery. The plaintiffs argued that the defendant “failed to affirmatively show that [the subject plaintiff] has put her mental condition in controversy and that [the defendant] has good cause for requesting her to undergo neuropsychological testing.”
