They hooked-up on the Internet and then he allegedly cheated her out of $70,000. She’s mad, not going to take it anymore, and files suit.
I hope her lawyer is getting paid by the hour. I’m not saying she doesn’t have a valid case – she might. I’m just saying that if she does the defendant is going to have at least one year to spend what he has.
Our friends in the insurance defense bar have compiled a list of helpful links to websites to do sleuthing on the Internet.
If they are going to do it, don’t you think you might want to consider doing it yourself?
I must say that this isn’t the best such list I have seen, but there are some interesting links concerning the admissibility of digital photography.
Radio station has a contest. If you are the 10th caller during a given hour you get “100 Grand.” Woman wins, and they give her a “100 Grand” candy bar. Woman, disappointed and undoubtedly a little embarrassed because she told her family she had won $100,000, sued the radio station. Read the articlehere.
I don’t know how I feel about this. I would have to hear the announcments concerning the prize to try to see in what context they used the phrase “100 Grand.”
One thing is for sure – the station has gotten alot more than $100,000 worth of publicity out of this little stunt – which may well have been the intention all along.
The first Vioxx trial will occur next month in Texas. Mark Lanier is the lawyer for the plaintiff; his client is the widow of a 59 year old triathlete who died in his sleep. He had been taking Vioxx for about 6 months.
Mark has a great reputation. It should be a dang good trial.
Here is a fascinating article about what was going on at Merck a few years ago.
Here’s a clip to wet your whistle:
“The widely publicized study in March 2000 found that patients taking Vioxx were five times more likely to have heart attacks than individuals using the generic medicine naproxen. Merck insisted at the time that this was a result of naproxen’s cardioprotective properties and not any defect in Vioxx.
Aren’t you sick and tired of these jerks who attack your clients and your profession? I have been jerked around at Little League games, my kids’ basketball games, cocktail parties, church – it never stops.
Here is some ammo you can use to fight back – unless you think that the better course of action is to simply walk away.
The Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices is available, free of charge, online at the Federal Highway Administration website. The site not only has the latest 2003 edition, but goes back as far as the 1993 revisions. You should be able to find the right edition to address any pending or potential claim for a roadway that is dangerously unmarked. Compliance with the MUTCD is necessary, but not always sufficient. The MUTCD and the law still require reasonableness by a contractor or highway planner.
The MUTCD is incorporated by reference into the regulations of the Tennessee Department of Transportation. Therefore, violation of the MUTCD is negligence per se.
Any lawyer can benefit by reading a good closing argument in any case. Of course, it is better to see it live – the paper cannot capture the emotion of an argument. But if you don’t have time to sit around in courtrooms all day a transcript is the way to go.
Here is the transcript of the argument of Thomas Mesereau, the attorney for the King of Pop.
Thanks to New Orleans lawyer A.J. Levy for letting me know how to find it. I met A.J. 12 or 15 years ago at an ATLA meeting; he was and is ahead of the technology curve. His blog is Out of the Box Lawyering.
Consumers and trial lawyers have been saying for years that if doctors would do a better job establishing standards and policing their own there would be less injuries and death and therefore less malpractice claims and (maybe) lower malpractice insurance.
The anesthesiologists figured this out and today, in constant dollars, they pay less for malpractice insurance than they did 20 years ago.
More importantly deaths have have dropped from 1 in 5000 cases to 1 in 200,000 to 300,000 cases.
The good news is that the FDA has recalled Guidant defibrillators. Here is the press release that discusses the recall and lists the models that are being recalled. Somewhere between 40,000 and 50,000 people are affected by the recall.
It is known that two people have died because of a malfunction in the device.
The bad news is that Guidant has not yet indicated that it will pay for the full cost of the replacement (including surgeon and hospital fees). Reportedly, it is only going to pay (i.e.not charge) for the cost of a new device. A hospital charges about $2000 for a device like this; the cost to Guidant is a fraction of this amount.
