Monday was supposed to be the first day in a string of executions in Arkansas, as the state’s supply of the sedative midazolam, which is used in the lethal injection, expires at the end of the month. That is why Arkansas Gov. Asa Hutchinson ordered eight executions to take place over 11 days, before the current stash of midazolam expires. But a succession of lawsuits has stopped the executions from happening.

This is the latest development in a messy legal fight as Arkansas is pushing to execute eight prisoners in almost as many days. Last month, the eight prisoners filed a lawsuit in which they called the state’s rush to kill them “reckless and unconstitutional.” They also cited the use of midazolam as a problem, as many other states have stopped using the drug after a couple of botched executions that led to slow and painful deaths.

At the end of last week, pharmaceutical companies Fresenius Kabi USA and West-Ward Pharmaceuticals Corp. filed a friend of the court brief in the prisoners’ lawsuit. Fresenius Kabi said it believes that the state of Arkansas acquired potassium chloride, the second ingredient in the three-drug lethal injection, from the company, and that it did so under false pretenses.

Arkansas fights in multiple courts to carry out two of eight planned executions Monday. https://t.co/ueFxXfktba

— AP Central U.S. (@APCentralRegion) April 17, 2017

On Friday, Arkansas Judge Wendell Griffen halted the use of the third of the three execution drugs, vecuronium bromide. The manufacturer of this drug, McKesson Corporation, also claimed that the state bought it under false pretenses, by using the medical license of an Arkansas physician. Although Griffen’s ruling was not based on the executions legality, it made the carrying out of the executions impossible. And then over the weekend, federal Judge Kristine Baker halted all of the executions, citing the prisoners’ lawsuit.

“The threat of irreparable harm to the plaintiffs is significant: If midazolam does not adequately anesthetize plaintiffs, or if their executions are ‘botched,’ they will suffer severe pain before they die,” she wrote. But on Monday, the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals overturned her ruling, saying the evidence that the executions would “cause severe pain and needless suffering” was insufficient.

To complicate matters, Judge Griffen was barred on Monday from hearing any death penalty cases in the state as it was revealed that he attended an anti-death penalty rally right after issuing the halt of the lethal injection on Friday. Griffen not only attended the demonstration, he also lay down on a cot and bound himself with a rope, making it look like he was a death row inmate on a gurney, awaiting execution. The protest took place outside Gov. Hutchinson’s house. Death penalty advocates were outraged and many Republican lawmakers called it judicial misconduct.

Judge rules against #Arkansas #executions. Judge attends anti-#deathpenalty rally. Judge barred from such cases. https://t.co/SodtMofgaj pic.twitter.com/hDLKFp553A

— AP Central U.S. (@APCentralRegion) April 17, 2017

The hurried pace of carrying out eight executions over 11 days is unprecedented in modern times, and Arkansas hasn’t performed an execution since 2005. But Hutchinson has been eager to get going, citing justice for the families of the victims the inmates have killed. And after all the legal back and forth, it looked like the state could go on with the plans. But then in a last minute development, the Arkansas Supreme Court granted a delay in the execution of one of the prisoners, Don Davis, after his attorney sought a stay on Monday. The court also stayed the execution of Bruce Ward.

Arkansas Attorney General Leslie Rutledge asked the U.S. Supreme Court late Monday evening to overrule that decision. The court declined to hear the case. However, late Monday the Arkansas Supreme Court also overruled the restraining order by Griffen on the use of vecuronium bromide, which means the lethal injections are free to use again. But the state is also facing a different problem: it can’t seem to find enough witnesses for the executions. The law requires at least six civilian witnesses at each execution.

So for now, all the prisoners are still alive. But since Baker’s stay of the executions was overruled, there is nothing that stops the state from going through with the executions, as long as there are enough witnesses. On Thursday, two inmates, Ledell Lee and Stacey Johnson, are scheduled for execution.

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Arkansas Keeps Fighting to Carry Out Planned Executions appeared first on Law Street.

Right now, it truly does feel like there are a lot of crazy lawsuits out there. Krispy Kreme was just sued over allegedly-fake berry flavored donuts. Starbucks has been sued  multiple times for not filling drinks enough. Sofia Vergara is currently being sued by her own frozen embryos. There’s a lot of lawsuits. And if you ask anyone what event started this era of (arguably unnecessary) litigiousness in the United States, most would point to the famous “McDonald’s hot coffee lawsuit.” But do you actually know the truth behind that lawsuit? TruTV’s “Adam Ruins Everything” took on the topic recently, with an eye-opening segment:

Adam Conover, the host of the comedy/myth debunking show, points out that the 1993 lawsuit was actually pretty legitimate. The 79-year-old woman who spilled the McDonald’s coffee on herself was severely burned and ultimately disabled. The coffee was served at 180 degrees, much hotter than it needed to be. And she didn’t even want to sue McDonald’s, but needed money to pay for her medical bills.

So why do we all remember the McDonald’s coffee lawsuit as such a ridiculous part of legal history? According to Conover, that rumor came from corporations who didn’t want to be sued, in a disinformation campaign to discourage “silly” lawsuits.

And it’s important to note that McDonald’s is still facing allegations that its coffee is way too hot. Earlier this year, two plaintiffs sued the fast food company after they spilled coffee hot enough to cause 2nd-degree burns. Starbucks has also been party to similar suits. While it’s less work for chains to brew coffee super hot to ensure it lasts longer and less people complain that it’s cold, it can be dangerous. And as for the woman who sued McDonald’s originally, as Conover pointed out, she should really be viewed as a hero.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Do You Know the Truth About the McDonald’s Coffee Lawsuit? appeared first on Law Street.

It’s been a busy few weeks for Peter Thiel. First, news broke that Thiel’s nemesis Gawker is shutting down (and blaming Thiel for its demise). Now, everyone is talking about a new startup that Thiel is backing, that would seemingly make it easier for plaintiffs to pay for civil lawsuits.

The startup is called Legalist. It focuses on litigation finance, which is a fancy way of saying that it funds lawsuits by other people, and then takes a cut of the settlement–up to 50 percent. Legalist isn’t the first company to come up with this idea by any means. But it thinks it has a better shot at identifying the winning cases, by using algorithms to “analyze millions of court cases to source, vet, and finance commercial litigation.”

On its website Legalist explains:

Unlike other litigation finance companies, Legalist uses data-backed methods to select, vet, and invest in litigation. Our algorithms trawl tens of millions of past court cases to accurately and efficiently assess litigation risk. As a result, Legalist is able to make faster decisions, on more cases.

The company was founded by two Harvard undergrads, Eva Shang and Christian Haigh; they were at least partially funded with a $100,000 Thiel Foundation grant. However, it does seem like Legalist is distinct from the kind of lawsuit that Thiel bankrolled against Gawker, brought by Hulk Hogan. Shang told the Guardian: “I used to work for a public defender in DC. We’re not funding criminal cases, nor would I be funding any suits against the media.” She instead floated the idea that Legalist could be used to help in a case like a “bakery damaged by a burst pipe bogged down in costly litigation.”

While Legalist’s aims appear to be good, the fact that Thiel is at all involved has garnered a lot of attention, and it’s not hard to imagine why. Thiel bankrolling Hogan’s lawsuit against Gawker, and Gawker’s subsequent bankruptcy and downfall, have worried a lot of people. For example, Trevor Timm of the Daily Dot wrote an excellent and thoughtful (albeit snarky) list of questions for people “cheering Gawker’s demise.” Dan Kennedy, an associate professor at Northwestern’s School of Journalism said as part of an answer in an interview:

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Legalist: Peter Thiel Backed New Startup that Helps Fund Lawsuits appeared first on Law Street.

Have you ever felt shorted by your barista during your morning Starbucks run?  You’re not alone: the company is facing a class-action lawsuit filed in the state of California last Wednesday for allegedly not providing latte drinkers with the promised amounts of beverage.

While the Tall, Grande and Venti cup sizes are meant to be 12, 16, and 20 ounces respectively, the lawsuit alleges that the cups are “approximately 25 percent underfilled.” The two plaintiffs, Siera Strumlauf and Benjamin Robles, appear to have done their research, as the lawsuit alleges that they “purchased and measured Starbucks Lattes at different stores, in different states, in different sizes, and in different flavors.” Alas, apparently none of them lived up to the amounts stated on the menu.

While to some, this may sound like a petty issue to sue over, the plaintiffs claim that their grievances go deeper than just being shorted a few ounces of sweet, caffeinated goodness, but may actually be a conspiracy by the company: “…by underfilling its lattes, thereby shortchanging its customers, Starbucks has saved countless millions of dollars in the cost of goods sold and was unjustly enriched by taking payment for more product than it delivers.” 

If you’re an avid Starbucks latte drinker, you may also seek to benefit if the Plaintiffs can successfully bring a case against the company According to Top Class Actions, if approved as a class action lawsuit, “…it will be open to all U.S. Class Members who purchased a Starbucks Latte” (apologies to all the Frappucino fans out there, you’re out of luck this time).

Starbucks, on its part, does not seem worried. The company issued a statement to Seattle P-I last Friday stating the following:

We are aware of the plaintiffs’ claims, which we fully believe to be without merit. We are proud to serve our customers high-quality, handcrafted and customized beverages. Hand-prepared beverages increase the likelihood of variations, as disclosed in the nutritional section of our website. Customers often prescribe for us how they want their beverage prepared (e.g. with room, extra foam), therefore beverage volumes are largely collaborative. If a customer is unhappy with their beverage preparation then we are happy to remake it to their satisfaction.

Whether or not the company will face legal consequences remains to be seen, but the question remains: is this just a frivolous lawsuit, or a campaign against corporate greed? Your call.

Mariam Jaffery

Mariam was an Executive Assistant at Law Street Media and a native of Northern Virginia. She has a B.A. in International Affairs with a minor in Business Administration from George Washington University. Contact Mariam at mjaffery@lawstreetmedia.com.

The post Angry Latte Drinkers Sue Starbucks for Underfilling Cups appeared first on Law Street.

The problem with online dating is that it might lead to an STD.

At least, that was the case with a woman who used the It’s Just Lunch dating site where the idea is you might find someone great, but if you don’t then it’s no big deal. After all, it’s just lunch.

In a lawsuit, the unnamed plaintiff found out that it could be a big deal and it was not just lunch when she left the date with Herpes II.

Her Story

Woman goes on date set up by It’s Just Lunch. Date goes well. Woman goes on second date. Date goes really well. Woman confirms that man was STD free, and informs him she is as well. Man and woman ‘enjoy each other’s company’ if you get my meaning. Woman finds out she has Herpes II. So maybe that date did not go as well as she had thought.

Now, after reading this, I am sure you are thinking, wow! I’m never using this dating service, not if they let things like this happen on the dates. I mean, there they are forcing people to have sex on second dates, and they don’t even require STD panels first. What kind of business is that?

The plaintiff in this suit felt the exact same way about the company, which she called the world’s #1 STD service. And since she is stuck with the consequences of the company’s irresponsible actions, she is obviously entitled to the big bucks.

The Court’s Rejection

 In court, It’s Just Lunch came up with a pretty shocking defense that might just shake you to your very core. They do not require you to have sex when you go on one of their outings. I know. If this is true, it changes everything.

Apparently, all they promise their users is a nice lunch with a stranger. If you follow up that lunch with a passionate workout that will burn the calories of the lunch and potentially leave you with a life-long memory of your experience, then that is not on them.

I guess they stop holding your hand after your introduction to the person because they think you are adults. So if you participate in adult activities, that is solely your choice.

The court agreed. It dropped her claim against the company and told her to put all of her eggs in one basket. Win against Norman, the poor, potentially STD-spreading dater, or do not win at all.

 Norman’s Story

Most of this case happened a few years ago (2011-2012 range). However, in an appeal filed earlier this year, we got some new light on the whole who-gave-who-what case.

Norman claims that he had undergone a medical exam not that long before this outing in which he was given the all-good-to-go stamp of approval from his doctor.

The court decided that the fact that he didn’t have Herpes II a couple of months before the fateful date didn’t mean he did not have it at the time of the date. Therefore, they ordered him to get a medical exam to find out his current condition.

Of course, the problem with this is that even if he did not have it then, he could have subsequently caught it. Or maybe she passed it to him. Either way, Norman is probably not going to be using It’s Just Lunch anytime soon–even if none of this was their fault.

Ashley Shaw

Ashley Shaw is an Alabama native and current New Jersey resident. A graduate of both Kennesaw State University and Thomas Goode Jones School of Law, she spends her free time reading, writing, boxing, horseback riding, playing trivia, flying helicopters, playing sports, and a whole lot else. So maybe she has too much spare time. Contact Ashley at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Woman Gets STD on Date, Sues Dating Service appeared first on Law Street.

If you’re in the Northeast today then you’re likely snowed in and binge-watching everything you’ve missed since the holidays. Need a break? Check out the best articles of the week from Law Street. The number one article came from Frank Halprin who covered New York City’s impending crack down on styrofoam; number two is a slideshow of the very weirdest arrests of the week from Anneliese Mahoney; and number three is from Allison Dawson who weighed in on the case of the Florida teenager who posed as a doctor for an entire month. ICYMI check out the best of the week from Law Street.

#1 Wave Goodbye to Your Takeout Containers

On January 8, New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio’s administration finished the work started by previous Mayor Michael Bloomberg by announcing that styrofoam containers will go by the wayside. This includes to-go boxes from the city’s many food trucks as well as coffee cups and packing peanuts. This is a purely environmental move, which might end up costing consumers more money and inconveniencing vendors. Though it has been met with some controversy, most people agree that ultimately it is a good decision. Read full article here.

#2 Weird Arrests of the Week

It’s the weekend, which means it’s time to look back once again on all the weird things that people did last week. This week’s weird arrests even went international–check out the story from Hong Kong! Read full article here.

#3 Florida Teen Who Pretended to be a Doctor Won’t Face Charges

Recently a 17-year-old boy in Florida posed as a doctor for about a month without anyone even noticing. According to reports, a patient at St. Mary’s Medical Center in West Palm Beach informed staff that a juvenile was dressed in a lab coat and was inside an OB/GYN exam room. The young man was not in the exam room alone, he was with a patient and another doctor. Read full article here.

Chelsey D. Goff

Chelsey D. Goff was formerly Chief People Officer at Law Street. She is a Granite State Native who holds a Master of Public Policy in Urban Policy from the George Washington University. She’s passionate about social justice issues, politics — especially those in First in the Nation New Hampshire — and all things Bravo. Contact Chelsey at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post ICYMI: Best of the Week appeared first on Law Street.

Schools are constantly feeling the push from colleges, the government, and parents to produce high performers; however, in order for young adults and children to learn, they need to feel safe in their learning environment. One thing that establishes that feeling of ease and safety is for it to be bully-free.

Kids and teens who find themselves becoming victims of either physical or verbal bullying can suffer from bruising and injuries, but can also suffer from depression, anxiety, fear, and low self-esteem. Students who are subjected to the highest levels of bullying have higher amounts of tardiness, absence, and dropouts. But what can and should schools do to prevent this issue? Read on to learn about the bullying that happens in our schools, the steps schools have taken to stop it, and what happens when schools don’t do enough.

How prevalent is bullying?

Bullying breaks down as follows, according to statistics from the National Bullying Prevention Center.

According to the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 50 percent of children are bullied at some point and ten percent are victims of bullying on a regular basis. Since 1992, there have been more than 250 violent deaths that were a direct result of bullying within schools, and it has also been a factor in several famous school shootings, including Columbine.

Cyber Bullying

Social media, text messaging, and other forms of bullying online have taken an issue that most students could escape at home, and made it nearly impossible to escape. Examples of cyber bullying include mean or nasty text messages and emails, rumors spread by social networking sites, and embarrassing pictures, videos, websites, or fake profiles. Cyber bullying is especially problematic for schools because it often happens off campus and can even be done anonymously. Many schools even question what jurisdiction they have over things that happen outside of schools grounds.

The number of students being cyber bullied has only grown with “secret” apps like YikYak. The 2010-2011 School Crime Supplement indicated that nine percent of students in grades six through 12 experienced cyber bullying; however, the 2013 Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance Survey found that 15 percent of high school students (grades nine through 12) were electronically bullied in that year. It is difficult to combat cyber bullying because just when one app or social media service is fixed, another emerges.

What policies and procedures do schools have in place?

Forty-nine states have anti-bullying legislation–Montana is the one exception–but that seems to not be enough. Schools have no way of enforcing some of the policies, especially when no one is a witness to the bullying. Many have claimed that coming up with actionable steps has proven to be more difficult than it seems because of the wide range of types of bullying. Illinois requires schools to institute social-emotional learning to prevent bullying, whereas other schools have mediation and continual programming. Five states don’t have any repercussions for the anti-bullying laws, while 12 states can actually pursue criminal charges against bullies. These sanctions range anywhere from suspension to community service or even jail time.

Many parents and administrators feel that bullying is a rite of passage of the coming of age process, or a way to toughen up students. Especially with male-on-male bullying, it isn’t always taken seriously; however, those entering the guidance field are starting to receive more training on how to handle bullying situations. The topic has been especially visible in media since shows like “Glee,” “Degrassi,” and even “Hannah Montana” have highlighted the lack of attention placed on bullying in schools. Shows like “Glee,” where the character of Kurt was bullied to the point that he left school, have resonated with students and caused many states to reconsider their actions against bullies.

Still, as the consequences make more noise, administrators, teachers, and students are starting to be held accountable for the behaviors within school walls. The Department of Education recently issued guidance to educators on when acts of student bullying could violate federal education anti-discrimination laws.

What can schools do to prevent bullying?

The truth of bullying is that it isn’t always easily seen, nor is it always black and white. Many people who bully have also been bullied. There is no preventative measure that will eliminate it 100 percent; however, what can be done is to curb the bullying to an immediate, manageable level.

Websites like StopBullying, Jim Wright Online, and the National School Safety Center all offer solutions to the bullying problems. Some of the highlights include programs, group activities, and even ongoing programs for both the bully and the bullied. They also map out the different things the schools can do in a situation where someone is bullied.

For example, an investigation should start immediately after the concern is raised. Anyone can raise the concern, including teachers, students, siblings, parents, bus drivers, and other faculty members. The next step is to have a meeting with the child to find out what is going on–but never with the bully at the same time. Peer mediation has its place, but it should not happen between a bully and a victim.

If the bullying is physical, there should be steps taken to provide for the physical safety of the student, and someone needs to alert necessary faculty and staff members to be on the lookout. The bully also needs to have one-on-one meetings to make sure he or she understands the severity of the problem.

The most important thing is that the school does a thorough investigation into the bullying so that it stops and doesn’t hinder anyone anymore–as bullying often has far-reaching effects that can even hurt the atmosphere of the classroom.

What happens if the bullying doesn’t stop?

Unfortunately, that’s a gray area as well. Many schools have faced lawsuits and fines because they didn’t investigate bullying enough. Schools could face anything from fines in court, being sued by the student or the student’s family, or even mandatory programs within the school. The biggest problems could come for the teachers and administrators who either ignored the bullying, or did as little as possible while it occurred. Some courts are even calling it child endangerment, especially in cases of sexual harassment, abuse, and hate crimes. An even bigger problem comes from cyber bullying and the photos that have been taken of students. Some of these images could be called child pornography.

Case Studies

Kara Kowalski v. Berkeley County Schools, et al. (4th Cir. July 2011)

In this case, a student sued the school district for limiting her First Amendment free speech rights after suspending her for creating a website that was attacking another student in the school. The website, called “Students Against Shay’s Herpes,” stated that the student had an STD, and created a comments section to gossip about the girl. Doctored photos also appeared on the website. Along with suspension, she was excluded from school festivities like a Charm Review, and she was kicked off the cheerleading squad.

The appeals court said the web page was created primarily for Kowalski’s classmates, so the school had the right to discipline her for disrupting the learning environment. They concluded that Kowalski had created a “hate website” in violation of the school’s anti-bullying policy.

The Judge in the case, Paul V. Niemeyer wrote:

Kowalski’s role in the `S.A.S.H.’ webpage, which was used to ridicule and demean a fellow student, was particularly mean-spirited and hateful. Regretfully, she yet fails to see that such harassment and bullying is inappropriate and hurtful and that it must be taken seriously by school administrators.

Still, it is a tricky area for schools, as many could see this as a freedom of speech violation, and because the website was made outside of school.

L.W. v. Toms River Regional School Board of Education, 189 N.J. 381 (2007)

In L.W. ex rel. L.G. v. Toms River Regional School Board of Education, the New Jersey Supreme Court held that a school district can be held accountable for bullying a student because of sexual orientation under the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (LAD); however, this only applies when the district is aware of the harassment but fails to take reasonable steps to stop it.

The plaintiff’s mother filed a complaint under the LAD in the Division of Civil Rights in which she alleged that the defendant, the Board of Education, failed to take action in response to the harassment that her child suffered due to his perceived sexual orientation. The Division of Civil Rights found that the Board of Education was liable for the peer harassment that L.W. had endured. The Appellate Division affirmed the decision of the Division on Civil Rights.

The case documented several years of abuse that started in fourth grade and continued into his freshman year, where he was bullied to the point of physical attacks. He was removed from the school and enrolled in a nearby district. As punishment for the initial bullying in elementary school, the school had students write apology letters. When he was taunted in seventh grade, the Assistant Principal broke up the fight, but found that L.W.’s behavior “provoked” the incident. More and more incidents occurred but the students only received verbal reprimands.

The school boasted a “zero tolerance bullying policy” the entire time. L.W.’s school addressed the policy in an assembly at the beginning of the school year, but there was no subsequent communication on the policy throughout the year. Eventually, L.W. withdrew from the school and enrolled at a school in a neighboring town. His attendance and transportation expenses were subsidized by the defendant Board of Education.

The Court concluded that the school had not taken reasonable steps to stop the bullying, and that there was more that could have been done on all levels. The Court differentiated L.W.’s situation from “isolated schoolyard insults” or “classroom taunts,” which is how the school had treated them.

Morrow v. Balaski 

At the end of 2013, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear an appeal seeking to hold a Pennsylvania School District responsible for the repeated bullying of a student by her peers. The case involved Brittany Morrow and the Blackhawk High School in Beaver County, Pennsylvania. Her bullying included racial threats, physical assaults, and cyber bullying. In one incident described in the case, Brittany was suspended after defending herself during a lunchroom attack. When her parents asked the school how to keep her safe, they suggested another school. They later filed a lawsuit against the Blackhawk school district and an assistant principal for alleged violations of their 14th Amendment substantive-due-process rights.

In their appeal to the Supreme Court in Morrow v. Balaski, the family said school officials “acted to allow the aggressor to return to school following her temporary suspension and despite court orders mandating no contact. They opened the front door of the school to a person they knew would cause harm to the children.” The appeals court ruled nine to five in favor of the school that there was no “special relationship” between schools and students and ten to four that legal injuries to the victims were not the result of actions taken by administrators under a “state-created danger” theory of liability.

The court was torn about the case, saying “Parents … should be able to send their children off to school with some level of comfort that those children will be safe from bullies. Nonetheless, the Constitution does not provide judicial remedies for every social ill.”

Conclusion

Bullying is a serious problem, and that is especially evident within schools. From simple teasing to physical threats and even assault, bullying weakens the education system. Schools are creating programs and offering tools to try to combat it; however, many people think that teachers and administrators are failing to properly address bullying. It isn’t always easy, when bullying now takes on so many forms, including on the web, schools have a changing relationship with students.

Resources

Primary

Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals: Kara Kowalski v. Berkeley Country Schools, et al.

Supreme Court of New Jersey: L.W. v. Toms River Regional Schools Board of Education, 189 N.J. 381 (2007)

Additional

Governing: 49 States Now Have Anti-Bullying Laws. How’s that Working Out?

AACAP: Bullying

Web MD: Social Bullying Common in TV Shows Kids Watch

Education Week: Supreme Court Declines to Take Up School Bullying Case 

Pacer: National Bullying Prevention Center

Noel Diem

Law Street contributor Noel Diem is an editor and aspiring author based in Reading, Pennsylvania. She is an alum of Albright College where she studied English and Secondary Education. In her spare time she enjoys traveling, theater, fashion, and literature. Contact Noel at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Bullying in Schools: Who Gets the Blame? appeared first on Law Street.

Hello, Monday, we meet again. As you trudge into a new work week, we’ve got you covered with stories you might have missed last week. Anneliese Mahoney topped the list with all three of the week’s top stories. Number one implores you to stop posting the useless copyright status to your Facebook account — seriously, it’s a waste of your time. Number two recounts Sarah Palin’s latest controversy, this time with PETA over a picture she sent out to her social media followers; and number three is a look at the bumpy legal road ahead for Uber. ICYMI, check out the best of the week from Law Street.

#1 Please Stop Posting the Facebook Copyright Status

Every now and then Facebook updates its policies. And immediately after that, I notice a series of statuses from my “friends” on Facebook. It’s a sort of notice alerting readers to the fact that the poster believes they have copyright over their own content. There are sometimes slight variations in wording, but that’s pretty much what these statuses look like every time. I’ve seen so many in my news feed over the last week that I thought it was time for an important PSA. This status means nothing. Read full article here.

#2 Sarah Palin vs. PETA: Welcome to the Overreaction Olympics

Sarah Palin has a unique place in my heart–after all, there are very few people who I can count on to continually surprise me with the weird scandals they manage to get themselves involved in. But she may have just outdone herself. The most recent Palin scandal started with a photo she posted to Facebook on New Years Day. Read full article here.

#3 Uber Will Have a Rough Ride in 2015

Uber is a great way to get from point A to point B, but the company may have a rocky road ahead of it in 2015. There are a lot of lawsuits pending against the ridesharing company, and while none of them seem that damaging, it does raise a question: why is Uber so prone to lawsuits? Read full article here.

Chelsey D. Goff

Chelsey D. Goff was formerly Chief People Officer at Law Street. She is a Granite State Native who holds a Master of Public Policy in Urban Policy from the George Washington University. She’s passionate about social justice issues, politics — especially those in First in the Nation New Hampshire — and all things Bravo. Contact Chelsey at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post ICYMI: Best of the Week appeared first on Law Street.

Uber is a great way to get from point A to point B, but the company may have a rocky road ahead of it in 2015. There are a lot of lawsuits pending against the ridesharing company, and while none of them seem that damaging, it does raise a question: why is Uber so prone to lawsuits?

One of the pending legal struggles against Uber involves its habit of sending incessant text messages to users. Uber has been named in a class action suit filed in U.S. District Court based in San Francisco. The suit argues that Uber has been abusing text-messaging marketing and bombarding people’s phones with unwanted messages. This is illegal ever since a change in FCC polices that interprets a law differently, namely that it:

Restricts telephone solicitations and the use of automated telephone equipment to include text messages sent to a mobile phone, unless the consumer previously gave consent to receive the message or the message is sent for emergency purposes. The ban applies even if consumers have not placed their mobile phone numbers on the national Do-Not-Call list.

Uber isn’t the only company to be on the receiving end of such a lawsuit–CVS, Jiffy Lube, Steve Madden, and Burger King have also been sued for doing the same or a similar thing. This class action lawsuit is asking for over $5 million in total for the text messages, although a judge will have to rule on whether or not to allow the legal proceedings to move forward as a class-action lawsuit.

That’s not the only time that Uber may see the inside of a courtroom this year. There’s currently an ongoing lawsuit about the tipping procedures used by the company. The lawsuit claims that Uber advertises that 20 percent of its fees go to tips for the drivers, but that it’s actually misleading its customers and keeping a substantial amount. This case, which also has the potential to become a class action suit, was originally filed by Caren Ehret of Illinois. She claims that because Uber’s policies are misleading, she, and other customers, ending up overpaying. This case has been stretching on for a while, as there has been some back and forth over whether or not the plaintiff can have access to certain of Uber CEO Travis Kalanick’s emails. It was just ruled that the plaintiff will be able to see those messages, and the case is continuing to move forward.

A third recent lawsuit against Uber involves the company’s “safe ride” fee that’s charged to its UberX customers. UberX is a ride sourced through Uber that uses the driver’s own car. This lawsuit argues that UberX is misleading its customers about what the “safe ride” fee does. According to Uber’s website, the safe ride fee is used to ensure that the drivers are up to industry standards, that they have the proper training, and that they pass background checks; however, this lawsuit, filed by one California and one Michigan resident, says that Uber’s safety features actually fall below industry standards.

These aren’t the only lawsuits with which Uber will have to contend in the coming months and years, and it’s not just in the courtroom that the company will see trouble. It’s also seen PR backlashes from controversies ranging from charging surge prices during the Sydney hostage crisis in late 2014, to sexual assault allegations in Chicago and New Delhi.

To be honest, I probably won’t stop using Uber, and I have a feeling most of my peers won’t either. It’s cheaper than cabs, and incredibly convenient. It’s a company that truly does have the ability to revolutionize transportation. But in order to get to that point, the truly revolutionary point I mean, it’s going to have to be careful. There are a lot of bumps in the road ahead for Uber–if it can weather them, it’ll be in good shape.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Uber Will Have a Rough Ride in 2015 appeared first on Law Street.

It’s a new year, and I for one am excited to see what it will bring. No matter what, there will definitely be a lot of legal issues to discuss, debate, and bring changes to all of our lives. The five cases below are the top five to watch in 2015; some have already appeared before SCOTUS and await decisions in 2015, while others will be heard throughout the year. Here are five fascinating Supreme Court cases to watch in 2015.

Anthony Elonis v. United States

Law Street has actually been covering this interesting case for a while–check out our coverage of the case, the University of Virginia law clinic that’s gotten involved, and the all the legalese behind it. The reason we’ve followed it so closely is because it really is fascinating. Anthony Elonis was convicted of threatening multiple people, including his wife, an FBI agent, the police, and a kindergarten class. But these weren’t threats in the classical sense. They were written on his Facebook page in the form of rap lyrics. He claims the posts are art, protected under the First Amendment, and that he never intended to hurt anyone. It will be up to the Supreme Court to decide if such intent needs to be shown when convicting someone of making threats. The case was heard on December 1, 2014, but the court has yet to rule.

King v. Burwell

In King v. Burwell, SCOTUS will yet again be asked to weigh the Affordable Care Act. This time, it’s all about the tax subsidies, and weirdly, the central question in really depends on one word: “state.” The way that the ACA reads, in order for an individual to qualify for a tax subsidy, he needs to be receiving healthcare “through an exchange established by the state.” So, can people residing in states that haven’t set up their own exchanges, but instead rely on the federal program, get those tax subsidies? The IRS certainly thinks so and has been granting the subsidies. It’s an argument based pretty much on semantics, but it could have a huge effect on the ACA itself. This case will be heard in March.

Peggy Young v. United Parcel Service 

This case will ask the Supreme Court to weigh in on how pregnant employees are treated. Peggy Young, formerly a delivery driver for UPS, is arguing that the company violated the Pregnancy Discrimination Act (PDA). The PDA says that pregnant workers should be treated the same as any other worker who is “similar in their ability or inability to work.” Young and her lawyers argue that other employees who sustain temporary injuries or something of the like are moved to other positions, while she was forced to take unpaid leave. UPS claims that those other workers are given different jobs based on policies that don’t apply to Young, and she was treated the same as she would have been had she sustained an injury out of work. It will be up to the Supreme Court to decide who’s in the right here. The case was just heard in December 2014; an opinion is forthcoming.

Holt v. Hobbs

Holt v. Hobbs will require the justices to look into prison procedures that prevent inmates from growing a beard in Arkansas. The plaintiff, Gregory Holt, wants to be able to grow a half-inch beard in accordance with his Muslim faith. The state is arguing that it could be used to smuggle drugs or other contraband. SCOTUS will have to rule on whether or not those prison procedures violate the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA). The question that the justices will consider is whether or not there’s a compelling enough government interest to prevent Holt from expressing his religion. The case was heard in October 2014; the opinion will be issued this year.

Alabama Legislative Black Caucus v. Alabama

This case centers on the practice of gerrymandering. The justices will have to decide whether or not it was illegal for Alabama to redraw the districts in 2012 after the Census in a way that packed black voters into particular districts. The Alabama Black Caucus says that it relied too much on race when drawing those districts. While partisan gerrymandering is usually legal, racial gerrymandering is not–so the justices will have to decide which actually happened here. This case was heard in November 2014; the opinion is expected in the coming months.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post SCOTUS Cases to Watch in 2015 appeared first on Law Street.

I have a quiz for you (don’t worry, it’s only one question, it isn’t math, and it’s multiple choice): If your four pit bulls break through a fence and enter the neighbor’s yard, then kill Bailey the ten-year-old beagle that resides there, what do you do?

a. Apologize.

b. Offer to buy the neighbors a new dog.

c. Both a and b.

d. Sue the neighbors for $1 million.

Now this is kind of a trick question, I have to admit. You see, the answer depends in large part on the type of person you are. If you are anyone in the population other than Emerald White, you will probably choose a, b, or c (or whatever else normal people do when their dogs have just killed another dog). However, if you are Emerald White, you will choose option d.

Courtesy of Giphy.

Before you judge White (and I assume we you are all judging her and calling her crazy), let me tell you her side of the story. You see, she actually has a pretty legitimate claim: she was injured while trying to stop her dogs from killing Bailey. Her injuries were both physical and mental (she says the mental injuries are anxiety, fear, and trepidation, but I think her mental problems are something different entirely), and since her dogs cannot pay for her pain and suffering nor can the beagle, she has to find someone who can pay. Clearly it must be the Bakers, her neighbors.

During the dog attack, White received dog bites and “scratch-type injuries” as would be expected in the midst of this type of an event. She had to pull her dangerous dogs (as subsequently declared by the police) off of the beagle who had the audacity to both live next door and stay in his yard instead of laying around locked up in a kennel where all dogs should have the decency to stay–other than, of course, dangerous pit bulls.

All of this could have been avoided, White claimed, if the Bakers had done their job and kept Bailey better confined. Never mind that they had recently had part of the fence fixed to make it safer and more secure. It was not enough–if it had been, none of this would have happened. I mean, the Bakers had to have known they lived by these four dogs. I assume they were probably doing scary things behind the fence all the time like that dog from The Sandlot. So, since they knew all that, they had a duty to keep Bailey locked up inside because clearly the Whites could not keep dangerous animals inside their house.

Courtesy of Giphy.

Basically the Bakers were just asking for a fight, and White was the one that had to face the consequences when her neighbors got what they wanted. For example, outside of her injuries, she is now required to register her dangerous dogs annually, get a six-foot fence, and pay $100,000 liability on the dogs.

I have some advice for Ms. White. If for some crazy reason you do not win this case, I have someone else you can sue. In 1996, a Kentucky man threw a boomerang that then returned and hit him in the head, so he sued himself and won (and then his insurance had to pay the money, so all in all, it was actually a pretty smart idea by a guy stupid enough to hit himself in the head with a boomerang). Thus, Ms. White, maybe you should take a page from that guy’s book and drop the suit against the Bakers and sue someone who might actually be at fault: yourself.

Ashley Shaw

Ashley Shaw is an Alabama native and current New Jersey resident. A graduate of both Kennesaw State University and Thomas Goode Jones School of Law, she spends her free time reading, writing, boxing, horseback riding, playing trivia, flying helicopters, playing sports, and a whole lot else. So maybe she has too much spare time. Contact Ashley at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Woman Sues Neighbors After Her Own Pit Bulls Kill Their Beagle appeared first on Law Street.

In January I published a break down of the top cases and judicial issues to watch in 2014. Now that the year is coming to an end, it seems appropriate to give you a progress report and see where those cases all ended up.

8. Lavabit and Ladar Levison

The case in January: After Edward Snowden’s revelations about NSA spying, it was discovered that he was using an encrypted email service called Lavabit. The owner, Ladar Levison, was court-ordered to hand over access to the entire site to the government, because Lavabit’s programming made it impossible to hand over access to just Snowden’s account. In protest, Levison shut down the site, defied a gag order, and has now filed an appeal.

What happened in 2014: Ladar Levison lost his appeal in April when he was hit with contempt of court charges. However, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, where the case was held, didn’t rule against Levison because of the merits of the case, but rather because it believed he had made a procedural misstep from the beginning and its hands were tied.

7. Jodi Arias

The case in January: In 2013, we saw the extremely weird case involving Jodi Arias in Arizona. She was eventually convicted of murdering her boyfriend, Travis Alexander. It was a gruesome and disturbing case in which the jury found her guilty; however, they could not agree on whether to sentence her to life in prison, or to death. A mistrial was declared on the sentencing portion of her trial and the new sentencing trial will also have new jurors.

What happened in 2014: The sentencing phase of Arias’ case is still underway. There’s controversy over some “mystery witness” and Arias demanding that the proceedings be made secret. What Arias’ sentence will be remains just as big of a mystery.

6. McCullen v. Coakley 

The case in January: McCullen v. Coakley has been waiting for its day in court since 2001. There was appeal after appeal before the Justices agreed to hear it. It involves a law that Massachusetts instituted to create a 35-foot buffer zone around reproductive health facilities.

What happened in 2014: SCOTUS ruled the Massachusetts buffer zones unconstitutional in the sense that they impeded protesters’ Freedom of Speech. If you’d like more information on the case, check out fellow Law Streeter Erika Bethmann’s excellent takedown of the decision: Sorry SCOTUS, Harassment isn’t Free Speech.

5. Silkroad Case

The case in January: The infamous illegal-good site Silk Road was removed from the web last Fall, and its alleged creator, Ross Ulbricht, was arrested. The site sold drugs and fraudulent IDs, among other things. In addition to being indicted for his work on the site, he has was accused of hiring assassins. The $80 million he allegedly made through the site is now in government custody.

What happened in 2014: The case against Ross Ulbrecht has been delayed until January 2015. He pleaded not guilty to various drug trafficking, money laundering, hacking, and criminal enterprise charges. According to his defense counsel, the case has been delayed because:

The court did not provide its reasons for the adjournment, but we asked for it earlier this week based on a couple of factors: the danger that the trial would run into the Christmas holidays, which would affect juror availability and the continuity of the trial; some technical and logistical delays (owing to the limitations inherent in Mr. Ulbricht’s pretrial confinement) in getting Mr Ulbricht access to some discovery; some other scheduling issues.

4. Marriage rights

The case(s) in January: The Supreme Court already put a stop to Utah’s same-sex marriage licenses in 2014. The case will now go to the nearest appeals court. This is just one example; there are other cases regarding the rights of homosexuals to marry all over the United States.

What happened in 2014: The victories just keep coming for gay marriage advocates. One of the biggest was on October 6 when the Supreme Court chose not to hear a whole collection of cases challenging same-sex marriage bans in a bunch of different states. Because it declined to weigh in on the appeals court decisions that had ruled the marriage bans unconstitutional, SCOTUS effectively increased the number of states with gay marriage to 30.

3. Voting Rights Cases

The case(s) in January: There have been a variety of efforts at the state level to change voting rights laws, and the DOJ and various special interest groups have stood up to these changes when needed. But in 2013, part of the Voting Rights Act was struck down by the Supreme Court. So, each challenge to voting rights has to be filed against separately. As a result, many suits will be heard in 2014 to states’ attempted voting rights changes.

What happened in 2014: As with gay marriage, there are a lot of cases still running through the system. Unlike gay marriage, there hasn’t been quite as much progress. There have been some cases argued in front of appeals courts, and some voter ID laws struck down, such as in Wisconsin and Texas. It seems like voter ID laws, as well as other restrictive voting laws will end up being decided on a state-by-state basis for a while.

2. Contraception 

The case(s) in January: There were contraception cases regarding coverage through the Affordable Care Act that made it to the court in 2013, but many more will be on deck in 2014. One involves a nonprofit called Little Sisters of the Poor, and others involve for-profit companies like Hobby Lobby.

What happened in 2014: The Hobby Lobby case was one of the biggest decisions to come out of SCOTUS this year. The Hobby Lobby decision made it so that private employers could refuse to provide certain contraception coverage in their insurance plans. While the justices attempted to make the case very narrow and make sure that they just ruled on the specifics of that case so that the “floodgates” wouldn’t be opened, what ramifications it may have down the road will be interesting to see.

1. NSA Cases

The case(s) in January: A lot of cases have been filed regarding the NSA’s monitoring of US citizens. A few may make it to the high court. US District Court Judge Richard Leon in Washington recently ruled that the NSA monitoring was unconstitutional. Meanwhile, District Court Judge William Pauley in New York dismissed a similar case. That kind of contradiction could lead to a big legal showdown in 2014.

What happened in 2014: This is another issue that has in many ways not come to its full judicial potential. Some cases are moving forward though — a federal appeals court in DC just started to hear a case that questioned the constitutionality of the NSA collecting so much data after the passage of the Patriot Act. This will be an issue to keep our eyes on moving into 2015.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Cases to Watch in 2014: Where are They Now appeared first on Law Street.

Sometimes in life you hear stories to which the only way you can respond is to say, Huh? Maybe even, What? How? Why? I am sure this has happened to all of you before, and everybody should know exactly what I mean. So, this week’s post addresses this very issue with bad lawsuits that make you say all of the above — What? How? Why?

What?!: Me, Myself, and I

A city employee in St. Paul, Minnesota, while performing her duties, hit and damaged Megan Campbell’s car. As most reasonable people would, Campbell expected the city to pay for the damage and, to further this point, she filed a claim asking for reimbursement of it. Sounds reasonable, right? Nobody in his right mind could deny the validity of of this claim. This should be an open-and-shut case, but if I have not already convinced you of this, let me add some details for you.

Megan Campbell, a St. Paul Parks and Rec employee, was driving a supply van for the city when she turned and hit a parked car belonging to one Megan Campbell. Campbell was upset that the city would hire such reckless drivers, and she was angry that Campbell was allowed to drive a city vehicle. Campbell decided that she would not get much from Campbell, so she went after Campbell’s employer.

Courtesy of Giphy.

Following?

In case you are having trouble, let me clear up the details for you: city employee Megan Campbell hit her own personal car while driving a city vehicle and then filed a claim saying she thought the city should pay for the damage since it was a city employee who hit her car. What?

How?!: This Club Is on Fire

Katelyn Sobon is proof that with enough effort you can definitely heat up a dance floor. Sobon was sitting at the Trilogy Nightclub and Hookah Lounge in Philadelphia while people danced wildly on the nearby stripper pole — which, as the club later clarified, was not actually a stripper pole, but a regular pole that patrons — specifically girls — could pose in front of and take pictures looking like a stripper; but, again, it was not a stripper pole. In their gyrating, one of the dancers hit the leg of Sobon’s table, knocking the hookah over and spilling hot coals down the front of her top, causing her breasts to be burnt. I’m sure this is not what she wanted people to mean when they said, “You look hot in that dress.”

Sobon is suing for the pain and embarrassment of the whole situation, but the club manager does not buy it. He wants to know why she has come back to his club several times since the incident, asking for free admission in lieu of a lawsuit — even after she filed — if she was so embarrassed. I don’t know who will win, though I have my guesses, but I do know that Alicia Keys said it best when she sang, “This girl is on fire.” But really, how does stuff like this happen?

Why?!: Micro-Management

When it comes to microwave journalism, you had better do your research. You wouldn’t want to mess that stuff up. The makers of the movie “American Hustle” are learning that lesson the hard way. I’m about to tell you about a scene from the movie, but if you have not seen it, note that this is in no way a spoiler: at one point in the movie, Jennifer Lawrence’s character said she does not believe in the technology behind the microwave. She claimed that contraption just zapped the nutrition out of the food, and she had proof: an article written by Paul Brodeur. She even hands the magazine with the article over to Christian Bale’s character.

Who cares, you ask? I’ll tell you who. Paul Brodeur cares, that’s who. The real journalist behind the real article stomped his foot, crossed his arms over his chest, and said with a poked out lip, Hey! That’s not what I said. You lied! I said that the technology was shaky and unproven not that it zapped out the nutrition. I’m gonna tell on you. Now all the scientists hate me and nobody wants to play with me and it’s all your fault. I hate you! I hate you! I hate you! And then flung himself to the floor before filing a million dollar lawsuit for libel and defamation. (Disclaimer: this is in no way a direct quote or reaction from Paul Brodeur. Mr. Brodeur, please do not sue me. I do not have a million dollars to give you.)

My final thoughts: really, Brodeur, really? Just … why?

Courtesy of Giphy.

So there you have it. The what-how-why stories from the legal world. I just don’t even know what else to say.

Ashley Shaw

Ashley Shaw is an Alabama native and current New Jersey resident. A graduate of both Kennesaw State University and Thomas Goode Jones School of Law, she spends her free time reading, writing, boxing, horseback riding, playing trivia, flying helicopters, playing sports, and a whole lot else. So maybe she has too much spare time. Contact Ashley at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Have an Irrational Hatred of Your Microwave? This Bad Lawsuit’s For You appeared first on Law Street.

Lacy lingerie and conversations about porn. They sound like the start to a good book or late night HBO programming. In fact, though, these are real world issues taking place in court rooms near you.

Pink Panties Prank

Courtesy of GIPHY.

As the saying goes, sometimes when life doesn’t go the way you want it to go, it is time to put on your big girl panties … because if you don’t, and you go to the same hospital as Andrew Walls, you might get stuck wearing someone else’s.

When you go to the hospital to have a colonoscopy, you are probably not in the best mood. And if you are, why? That’s weird. Anyway, let’s assume that everybody goes into this procedure without a smile. Well, wouldn’t you then like it if a hospital worker tried to cheer you up when the procedure was over?

Imagine this: you wake up from anesthesia, nervous about your results and mad that this is how you are using your day off. Add to that that you actually work at this surgery center so you might be a little embarrassed and nervous that co-workers saw you naked or might learn the verdict before you. Wouldn’t you laugh if you realized somebody had placed pink, lace panties on your unconscious body? (Disclosure: I probably actually would laugh at that, but then again, I am pretty weird.)

In the above scenario, did you laugh like me or were you outraged? If you were the latter, then you will feel Andrew Wall’s pain when I tell you that my above hypothetical was his reality. In 2012, Wall really did go to a surgery center where he was at that time employed, had a colonoscopy, and woke up wearing lady lingerie. What would you do in this situation? If you are like Wall, you would sue for intentional infliction of emotional distress.

I don’t know if he’ll win, but I feel confident saying that if he goes to court and shows off the evidence, he’ll probably look good while trying.

 Privacy and the (Non)Porn Star

Courtesy of Tumblr.

Justice Stewart famously said, “I know it when I see it” about pornographic materials. Well, apparently he should teach classes in recognizing smut because if those lessons were available, radio station owner Entercom Kansas City may not have lost a million dollars.

Afentra and Danny Boi had a morning radio show called “Afentra’s Big Fat Morning Buzz.” One day, the pair decided to host an impromptu ‘name that possible porn star’ contest with an unintentional million dollar prize. Listeners of the show were asked to text in the name of a supposed local porn star. Ashley Patton’s name got submitted twice. What more proof would you need to talk bad about somebody on air than that? Well, the DJs decided they should probably find at least a little more before they dragged her name through the mud. So they did a Google search.

If you Google ‘Ashley Patton, porn star,’ at least pre-this story, you would apparently not come up with anything, but you would get a Google suggestion asking if you meant Ashley Payton. A Payton search will pull up a lot of stuff Justice Stewart would have recognized. And since Payton and Patton are really, really similar, they must be the same people, right?

So now, with proof in hand, the radio hosts took to the air with the story “Ashley Patton is a Porn Star” and stated her former high school —  there was even a play-by-play of the Google Results with no mention of the name change. They then posted her name on their website as part of a list of suspected local porn stars. They did admit the list was “unofficial,” but said it with an implied wink. The show was then made available as a podcast.

As it turns out, Payton and Patton are actually two very different people. And Patton did not appreciate the comparison. She called the radio station to complain; and the Program Director, Scott Geiger, answered the call. She told him what happened, and he, previously unaware of the segment, asked her the very obvious question: “Well, are you?” and when she said no, he followed up with the most logical next question: “How do you know that you’re not a porn star?” (Apparently Geiger had not been a Justice Stewart fan and didn’t realize it’s actually hard to accidentally become a porn star.)

Eventually the list was changed and the podcast was removed, but it was too late. Patton brought a lawsuit for false light invasion of privacy and negligent supervision. Which is how she became the winner of a one million dollar prize that the radio show neither planned on giving nor wanted to award.

You could search online or watch subscription stations after ten if you want to find some risqué material, but why bother? If you want the really dirty materials, just head on down to court.

—

Ashley Shaw (@Smoldering_Ashes) is an Alabama native and current New Jersey resident. A graduate of both Kennesaw State University and Thomas Goode Jones School of Law, she spends her free time reading, writing, boxing, horseback riding, playing trivia, flying helicopters, playing sports, and a whole lot else. So maybe she has too much spare time.

Featured image courtesy of [Mike Small via Flickr]

Ashley Shaw

Ashley Shaw is an Alabama native and current New Jersey resident. A graduate of both Kennesaw State University and Thomas Goode Jones School of Law, she spends her free time reading, writing, boxing, horseback riding, playing trivia, flying helicopters, playing sports, and a whole lot else. So maybe she has too much spare time. Contact Ashley at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Lace and Lawsuits: The Scandalous World of Court Cases appeared first on Law Street.

Every time I see a law enforcement officer in public — mall cop, fashion police, regular 5-0 — I have the irrational fear that they are out to get me. (This is especially true of the fashion police, but my fear of them might not be that irrational as anyone who has seen my clothing choices could attest.) I’m never doing anything I’m not supposed to be doing (or at the very least, I’m never doing anything I’m going to admit to you), but that doesn’t matter: I am sure I am about to be thrown in handcuffs and taken downtown. Little did I know, instead of fearing this, I should have been hoping for it. Just ask Elizabeth Daly or Mickey Lynn Goodson.

What’s The Legal Water-Drinking Age?

Underage college student Elizabeth Daly went to a grocery store and bought cookie dough and “sparkling water,” so she claims. And let me tell you, I would have been suspicious if I heard this story, too. Who buys cookie dough and water together? That is clearly a cover up. You drink milk with cookies — nothing else. Clearly the cookies were supposed to make her look innocent while she snuck out a whole lot of liquor in cleverly marked sparkling water bottles. She even went so far as to pretend to be buying these items for a philanthropy event run by her sorority. Yeah right, sister, sounds a little too good to be true if you ask me. And I’m not the only one who thinks this way.

As Daly left the store, plainclothes officers surrounded her SUV and banged on her windows — one trying to break a window while another drew a gun. Daly sped off, even grazing two officers on her way out. Feigning innocence yet again, she called 911 and reported the men as if she was not aware that they were cops. When she was told who they were, she returned to the scene of the crime and was arrested for eluding police and assaulting officers. (As it turned out, the case of beer she bought while underage — the event that caused the stop — was actually the case of sparkling water that Dalyt claimed it to be. So they couldn’t really charge her with that.)

Courtesy of Tumblr

Daly spent the night and part of the next day in jail. She also had to post bail, hire a lawyer, and miss school and social events. Her record was eventually expunged and all charges dropped, but it was too late for forgiveness at that point. Daly sued for $40 million. She settled for $212,500 though — which will buy a lot of cookies and water for her next event.

Of Mucus and Meth

When you are already feeling sick and mucusy, the last thing you want is to be arrested at your local Winn-Dixie for possessing controlled substances. I mean, it isn’t really fair. I know, personally, when my head is all stuffed up, the last thing I can think about is keeping my meth lab running. Perhaps Mickey Lynn Goodson looks smarter than me, though.

I can’t say what exactly about her was suspicious looking, but I can tell you what happened to her after she bought two pharmacist-recommended boxes of Sudafed. She was, of course, promptly arrested.

As many people know, Sudafed clears up your congestion, relieves sinus pressure, and helps build your booming meth business. Goodson claims that she bought the drugs for purely health-related reasons. But let’s face it. If I wanted to make meth, bought Sudafed for my basement lab, and then got caught, my first instinct might be to lie as well.

Courtesy of Quick Meme.

This must have been what the arresting officer was thinking too. Because after he stopped her and took her Sudafed, told her she had to wait for more officers, searched her car with the other deputies, took her to the sheriff’s office, asked to search her home, told her “Oh, I’ll get a search warrant,” held her for hours, arrested her on her own front porch, questioned her about what she had gotten rid of, and booked and charged her with possession of a controlled substance, he still wanted to find out more.

To further this goal, he really did go out and get that search warrant he promised Goodson and her husband he would get. How, you ask, did he show probable cause? Well, he informed the magistrate about all of Goodson’s false and misleading statements and evidence.

As it turns out, Goodson might not have been a meth maker after all. All charges were dropped against her. And she only had to put up with all that nonsense for 15 months so she really has no right to complain — I’ve had sinus infections that lasted longer than that (they don’t go away without Sudafed and I’m too scared to buy some). Still, though, complain she will…by suing in a Tallahassee court. Who wants to take my bet that she will win something here?

The moral of today’s post is that when you buy something — anything, no matter how innocent looking you think it might be — act really suspicious and maybe some bumbling officer will mistake you for a bad guy and make an arrest thus insuring all your debts are paid off and your next vacation is paid for. After all, it worked for Daly and Goodson, and they weren’t even trying!

—

Ashley Shaw (@Smoldering_Ashes) is an Alabama native and current New Jersey resident. A graduate of both Kennesaw State University and Thomas Goode Jones School of Law, she spends her free time reading, writing, boxing, horseback riding, playing trivia, flying helicopters, playing sports, and a whole lot else. So maybe she has too much spare time.

Featured image courtesy of [epSos .de via Flickr]

Ashley Shaw

Ashley Shaw is an Alabama native and current New Jersey resident. A graduate of both Kennesaw State University and Thomas Goode Jones School of Law, she spends her free time reading, writing, boxing, horseback riding, playing trivia, flying helicopters, playing sports, and a whole lot else. So maybe she has too much spare time. Contact Ashley at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Careful When Buying Water and Cold Meds, You Might Just Get Arrested appeared first on Law Street.

Rachel Ann Nunes may not have made it to your personal library (or maybe she did — I don’t know what you read), but she apparently made it to Tiffani Rushton’s. Nunes is the author of, among other books, a Christian novel entitled A Bid for Love. Third grade teacher (that is pretty irrelevant to the story, but somehow makes what I am about to say that much worse) Rushton read the book and had a thought.

“What,” I assume she asked herself, “could make this Christian novel even better?” And then, light bulb! She knew the answer!

Graphic sex scenes!

Because, of course, every book is made better with graphic sex scenes.

Now that she had her million dollar idea, she just ran with it. She wrote The Auction Deal – an e-book that, from what I gather, is basically just A Bid for Love with the aforementioned sex. Unfortunately for her, Nunes somehow got a hold of the novel and was not left as satisfied as all that sex was supposed to make her.

Courtesy of Tumblr.

So, she sued Rushton claiming plagiarism.

Perhaps Rushton had an agenda here. She is, after all, a third grade teacher. And the best way to remember things is if you have a real world example, right? So, maybe ‘plagiarize’ was going to make the weekly vocabulary list and Rushton had the perfect example sentence for her students…

“For word three: plagiarize. It means to act like somebody else’s ideas are your ideas. For example, when Ms. Rushton added detailed sex scenes to someone else’s story and then said she wrote the whole book, she plagiarized, which is why she probably will lose a whole lot of money in court.”

I bet a lot of students will get that one right come test day, so Ms. Rushton might just deserve teacher of the month.

Assuming education was not her main goal, though, did she really plagiarize? I wanted to see just exactly how closely these books were related. To that end, I went to my favorite store, Amazon, to look up the descriptions of these books. Here is what I found –

A Bid for Love:

Cassi is the head buyer for a prestigious art gallery in California. Jared is a buyer for an exclusive New York gallery. Sparks fly as the two come head to head in a bidding war for a hideous but very expensive Indian Buddha. Cassi and Jared are both determined to win the statue, but others also want the Buddha—at any cost. Thugs, art forgers, the FBI, or Jared’s beautiful and alluring boss . . . who will end up with the statue? During a string of hair-raising exploits, Cassi and Jared are forced to develop a tentative friendship that deepens into romance. Will they survive long enough to see it through? Best-selling author Rachel Ann Nunes has crafted a wonderfully intriguing and romantic drama in this fast-moving novel, bringing two idealistic people together from opposite edges of the continent and allowing them, in their own way, to find an unexpected connection to their Christian faith and each other. In the end, their very lives depend on the trust they’ve developed. If you love romance and excitement, you’ll be captivated by A Bid for Love.

The Auction Deal:

Huh. A search for this book (and Tiffani Rushton) just brings back results for A Bid for Love. Okay. So that doesn’t help. Because I have nothing to give you from Amazon, and I am much too lazy to see if other sources have a description, I am forced to write my own idea of what this book is about (completely out of my head and with no help from any other source):

Cassi Ella is the head buyer for a prestigious art gallery in California. Jared Lance is a buyer for an exclusive New York Chicago gallery. Sparks fly as the two come head to head in a bidding war for a hideous but very expensive Indian Buddha. Cassi and Jared Ella and Lance are both determined to win the statue, but others also want the Buddha—at any cost. Thugs, art forgers, the FBI, or JaredLance’s beautiful and alluring boss . . . who will end up with the statue? During a string of hair-raising exploits, Cassi and Jared Ella and Lance are forced to develop a tentative friendship that deepens into romance. Will they survive long enough to see it through? Best-selling author Rachel Ann Nunes Tiffani Rushton has crafted a wonderfully intriguing and romantic drama in this fast-moving novel, bringing two idealistic people together from opposite edges of the continent and allowing them, in their own way, to find an unexpected connection to their Christian faith and each other by having hot graphic sex. In the end, their very lives depend on the trust they’ve developed. If you love romance and excitement, you’ll be captivated by A Bid for Love The Auction Deal. 

Hmm. I don’t know if I am convinced these sound that much alike. I guess we will all have to wait with bated breath for the sinewy, devil-may-care judge to slowly but powerfully pound his long gavel…

Courtesy of Tumblr.

…and give us his ruling.

(Here is a real summary of Rushton’s book from Goodreads. As you will note, the full title appears to be NOT A BOOK: The Auction Deal.)

—

Ashley Shaw (@Smoldering_Ashes) is an Alabama native and current New Jersey resident. A graduate of both Kennesaw State University and Thomas Goode Jones School of Law, she spends her free time reading, writing, boxing, horseback riding, playing trivia, flying helicopters, playing sports, and a whole lot else. So maybe she has too much spare time.

Feature Image courtesy of [Stephen Coles via Flickr]

Ashley Shaw

Ashley Shaw is an Alabama native and current New Jersey resident. A graduate of both Kennesaw State University and Thomas Goode Jones School of Law, she spends her free time reading, writing, boxing, horseback riding, playing trivia, flying helicopters, playing sports, and a whole lot else. So maybe she has too much spare time. Contact Ashley at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Naughty School Teacher: Plagiarism Can Get Steamy appeared first on Law Street.

I don’t know about you, but I had a great Labor Day. My sister Ariel flew up for the weekend, and we stuffed our days full of fun activities like seeing Book of Mormon on Broadway and going to a Yankees vs. Red Sox Game. We laughed, cheered, and created the “Adventures of Stick Figure Amber” – where I drew our annoyingly absentee sister into every single picture and gave her some wacky adventures of her own in an effort to pretend she was there.

Perhaps the highlight of this trip was what we did on Saturday and Sunday: attend Jay Z’s “Made in America” music festival in Philadelphia. We saw tons of great acts – one being Kanye West. (We also saw that in our advanced old age of early-to-late twenties, we were perhaps already too old for this type of event. I’ve never wanted to say “Do your parents know you are here?” more than when I saw all those pre-teens dressed in practically nothing openly drinking and doing drugs. Kids today! But that is straying from the point…)

As Ariel and I danced (rather I jumped up and down like an idiot while Ariel stood still glaring at me with disdain) and people-watched, we had no idea what shameful secrets were brewing just underneath the surface. (That might be an overly dramatic opening to what I am about to write.)

The lawsuit about which I am going to tell you is not really all that funny or even out of the ordinary; however, it is really exciting because it kind of, sort of, on a tangent, not really but I’m counting it deals with an event that I was attending. And that makes it interesting to me if to no one else.

Courtesy of gifsoup.

Did you know that “Made in America” the music festival was named after a Jay Z and Kanye song with the same name? Brooklyn rapper Joel McDonald didn’t. Or rather, he knew it was named after a song with the same title, but he was under the impression that it was his song, not the rap legend duo’s. He came to this conclusion based on the fact that he sang and sold on iTunes this song in 2009, but it was done by Jay Z and West in 2011 — with no mention of McDonald there.

Let’s compare…

McDonald’s song:

Jay Z and Kanye’s song:

Are they the same? McDonald hopes people will think they are close enough, because to celebrate the third annual “Made in America” festival, now located in Los Angeles as well, McDonald sued for $3 million for copyright infringement in Manhattan Supreme Court.

What do you think: Will Jay Z soon be in a little less of an empire state of mind or will McDonald find out that New York isn’t the concrete jungle were dreams are made for everyone? Was Kanye acting more stupidly or did McDonald say something when he gon’ end up apologin’? Will Jay Z…I could go on with these all day.

Ashley Shaw

Ashley Shaw is an Alabama native and current New Jersey resident. A graduate of both Kennesaw State University and Thomas Goode Jones School of Law, she spends her free time reading, writing, boxing, horseback riding, playing trivia, flying helicopters, playing sports, and a whole lot else. So maybe she has too much spare time. Contact Ashley at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Lawsuits and Copyright Infringement Made in America appeared first on Law Street.

When I was 21 about to graduate from college, my cousin Katie, six at the time, promised me that she would come live with me when I got a job and be my maid because she really, really liked using her play broom and mop to clean. As a future law student, I realized something about this statement:

1. Katie told me she would do this (offer).
2. I said, ‘sounds good’ (acceptance).
3. My place would be clean, and without a maid it definitely wouldn’t be, and Katie would be able to fulfill her love of cleaning while simultaneously having a place to live (consideration).
4. We were both more than likely on the same page (mutuality).

Clearly, this was a legally enforceable oral contract. Sweet!

So, a few years later I moved to New Jersey to start my independent, adult life and told her she was required to come with me. Imagine my surprise when she, now nine, told me she no longer liked cleaning, and plus her parents probably wouldn’t let her come with me because they would miss her too much.

Courtesy of Tumblr.

I knew a breach when I saw one, and I told her I might have to sue; however, more pressing matters existed at the time, and I kind of forgot. But I was reminded of this story recently when I read an article about Jesse Dimmick.

Dimmick faced the same dilemma that I did with Katie: he made a very clear oral contract with a couple, and they just went and breached it. Unlike me, though, Dimmick had the strength and character to actually fight for his rights and sue.

Here is the story: Dimmick and an accomplice went to the Aurora motel in Colorado and met Michael Curtis; the men were all big druggies. The duo stabbed Curtis to death, stole his drugs and wallet, and ran away (Dimmick pled guilty to this so I feel free to leave off the “allegedly” here). The accomplice was then caught and arrested at another motel. This made Dimmick think that the cops might want to arrest him too, and he knew he had to do something to protect himself.

So he went to Kansas where he found some friends: Jared and Lindsay Rowley. He didn’t know the couple before he entered their house uninvited and held them at knifepoint, but something like that shouldn’t stand in the way of potential companionship.

To celebrate the newly formed friendship, the couple offered the fugitive food, drink, and a blanket. They then watched movies together until Dimmick fell asleep. This is where this story takes a turn for the worst: the Rowleys turned out to be very bad hosts. When their new pal fell asleep, they had the audacity to run to the cops and give away his location. The police came barging in to wake up the sleepy murderer from his much-needed nap, shooting him in the process.

Not even done with their betrayal, this horrible couple actually sued Dimmick for home invasion and stress! But don’t worry, Dimmick realized that the Rowleys were in the wrong and decided to make sure they never treated any other fugitive on the run from the law in a similar manner: he countersued.

Dimmick had realized the same thing that I had realized with Katie:

1. He told the couple that he would give them an undisclosed amount of money if they hid him (offer).
2. He said they agreed to the offer (acceptance).
3. He would have a safe haven to protect him since he “feared for his life,” and they would get money (consideration).
4. I’m sure both parties knew what they were doing here (mutuality).

Clearly, this was a legally enforceable oral contract. And Dimmick wanted $235,000 for this egregious act. After all, not only did they breach the contract, but that breach caused the poor man to get shot.

Strangely, the court decided to dismiss this lawsuit despite the strong case Dimmick presented. Then, to pour gas on the fire, Dimmick was first convicted of two counts of kidnapping and sentenced to eleven years then convicted of murder and given another 37 years.

I just don’t understand the court system. When a man with a clearly valid case like this one cannot win, what is the point in even trying? Horrible as this is to say, with this line of inappropriate judicial highhandedness, there is a chance I wouldn’t have even won my case against Katie despite the fact that I was clearly right.

I sympathize with Dimmick. It is hard to trust anyone these days, and the only solution seems to be to get everything in writing and probably also have it notarized. Next time Katie offers to work for me, I’ll have learned my lesson. I hope for his sake Dimmick will too. If some other inmate offers him protection for certain “other favors,” Dimmick should break out the pen and paper: I’d hate for him to lose another case orally.

Courtesy of GIPHY.

Ashley Shaw

Ashley Shaw is an Alabama native and current New Jersey resident. A graduate of both Kennesaw State University and Thomas Goode Jones School of Law, she spends her free time reading, writing, boxing, horseback riding, playing trivia, flying helicopters, playing sports, and a whole lot else. So maybe she has too much spare time. Contact Ashley at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Free Advice: Oral Contracts Don’t Apply When You’re Held at Knifepoint appeared first on Law Street.

Various companies with recent intellectual property disputes are taking us back for a nostalgic look at our 90s childhoods. Chances are that at least once in your life you witnessed a jungle gym proposal involving the iconic Ring Pop.

Topps Co., the distributor of the Ring Pop, filed suit on August 21 in New York against the Ohio-based Primary Colors Design Corp. claiming trademark infringement. Topps asserts that three months ago Primary Colors revealed a product too similar to the Ring Pop at the National Confectioners Association’s Candy and Snack Show. According to Topps, Primary Colors showcased the Valentine Ring Lollipop — a sugary candy gem mounted on a plastic base in the design of a ring.

Topps requests a court order that would ban Primary Colors from producing and selling the candy item, in addition to financial damages.

It looks like there may only be room for one candy jeweler on the playground. But in case you weren’t the romantic type but more of a young businessman, you may have found yourself trading Pokémon cards in the sand box.

Courtesy of Kate Haskell via Flickr

Last week, Pokémon Co. International sent a cease and desist notice to Shapeways Inc. demanding it halt sales of its 3-D printed planter, which resembles the Pokémon character Bulbasaur. Although Shapeways did not officially label the planter as a Pokémon character, calling it a “succulent monster” instead, more than one reference to the Pokémon franchise was included in the listing.

After receiving the notice, Shapeways removed the listing from its website, but Pokémon International  is “asking for all the money associated with this model.”

So as children, after summers of Ring Pop proposals and Pokémon transactions, when winter rolled around, Disney movies were the go-to form of entertainment.

Last month, Disney found itself in its own winter nightmare when it was unsuccessful in convincing a court in San Francisco to dismiss a copyright infringement lawsuit. Kelly Wilson, a California filmmaker, sued The Walt Disney Co. over a trailer for the popular new Disney movie Frozen. Wilson claimed that in the trailer, the snowman character Olaf too closely resembles a character in his film The Snowman.

Courtesy of HarshLight via Flickr

A federal judge denied Disney’s motion to dismiss this case, writing, “the sequence of events in both works, from start to finish, is too parallel to conclude that no reasonable juror could find the works substantially similar.”

Although Disney’s Frozen features the famous song “Let it Go” with the lyric, “No right, no wrong, no rules for me I’m free!” the lawsuit is likely to go to trial.

—

Alexandra Badalamenti (@AlexBadalamenti) is a Jersey girl and soon-to-be graduate of Fordham University in Lincoln Center. She plans to enroll in law school next year to study Entertainment Law. On any given day, you’ll find her with big blonde hair, high heels, tall Nashville dreams, and holding a newspaper or venti latte.

Featured Image Courtesy of [Elizabeth Albert via Flickr] 

The post The 90s Called: They Want Their Courtroom Back appeared first on Law Street.

In today’s installment of completely cringe-worthy legal news, a contestant on VH1 reality show “Dating Naked” is suing the company for…being shown naked while dating.

Jessie Nizewitz, a 28-year-old model from New York, filed suit for $10 million this week against VH1, parent company Viacom, and two production companies for failing to blur out her crotch during a beach wrestling scene. (Yes, you read that correctly: naked beach wrestling on a first date being filmed for a reality TV show. That’s some serious other-level confidence.) Take a look at the Today Show’s clip below if you’re unfamiliar with the show, though I’m betting it’s exactly what you’re imagining in your head already.

Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Now in all honesty, I kind of love this show. My friend and I discovered it a few weeks ago while watching The Soup, and subsequently binge watched all the episodes available On Demand (sadly there were only three at the time). If you haven’t seen it, or are sticking to the story that you would never watch such base programming, let me fill you in: contestants are flown to a private island where they bare their souls and birthday suits to strangers while participating in decidedly unromantic activities (naked four wheeling, anyone?) all in the hope that they will find that special someone.

According to Nizewitz, the show’s producers verbally promised that only contestants’ butts would be shown, with all other good stuff blurred out. There’s no mention of this assurance in a written contract, but that of course wouldn’t negate its validity depending on location. In an interview with the New York Post, Nizewitz expressed disappointment that a man she’d been seeing for a month disappeared after the episode aired: “He was employed, Jewish, in his 30s and that’s pretty much ideal.”

Setting aside the obvious here that Nizewitz was participating in a television show built entirely around being naked, it does seem that she had a reasonable expectation that her body would be blurred for broadcast. A $10 million expectation? We’ll find out soon enough. Until then, I’m still tuning in to this bizarre and uncomfortable social experiment. Because honestly, who doesn’t enjoy watching nascent relationships bud over naked tumbling, basket weaving, and Zumba classes?

—

Chelsey Goff (@cddg) is Chief People Officer at Law Street. She is a Granite State native who holds a Master of Public Policy in Urban Policy from the George Washington University in DC. She’s passionate about social justice issues, politics — especially those in First in the Nation New Hampshire — and all things Bravo. Contact Chelsey at cgoff@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured imaged courtesy of [Joe Shlabotnik via Flickr]

Chelsey D. Goff

Chelsey D. Goff was formerly Chief People Officer at Law Street. She is a Granite State Native who holds a Master of Public Policy in Urban Policy from the George Washington University. She’s passionate about social justice issues, politics — especially those in First in the Nation New Hampshire — and all things Bravo. Contact Chelsey at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Dating Naked Contestant Sues for Being Shown Naked While Dating appeared first on Law Street.

Law school can seem scary. And boring. And hard. And when you realize you not only willingly entered this scary, boring, hard institution, but you forked over a whole lot of money to do so, you might begin to ask yourself, “What in the world is the matter with me?” So, for all you 1Ls who have just started or who are about to start, I just want to let you know that mixed in with the all the serious, dry information you are going to read, which may or may not be useful in your future careers, there are some weird, ridiculous cases you will study that are going to offer you some much needed comic relief.

To prove my point, I am going to tell you about some of the more fun cases that stood out so much that I still remember them this long after I graduated. Not only that, but I managed to wade through my murky memory to come up with a case from five of the basic 1L courses…yes, even contracts. I’ll give you plots, but I’m not giving away endings here. There are no spoiler alerts — I don’t want any angry professors coming after me because students weren’t coming to class since I already taught them everything they needed to know.

The Haunted Property

In Stambovsky v. Ackley, 169 A.D.,2d 254, we learn that, yes, ghosts are real…or, well, at least, that a house can be legally haunted. This all began when Jeffrey Stambovsky tried to buy a house from Helen Ackley. Well, I guess it really started before he tried to buy a house from Helen Ackley. Like, say, when she started advertising the house as haunted. And I’m not talking about that one time she told a friend over coffee, I’m talking about real press advertising. That’s right, she put her ghost story in print — in both the local paper and in Reader’s Digest. She did not, however, tell the ghost story in the description of the house, or in the contract, or in any verbal communications that she or her realtor had with Mr. Stanbovsky.  And let me tell you, when Stanbovsky found out he had just purchased a bunch of poltergeists, he was less than pleased. In fact, he was so mad he wanted to get out of the contract (so see, really you’re getting two entertaining contract stories here).

Courtesy of tumblr.

Of course, Ms. Ackley tried say the ghosts had moved out — or didn’t exist — or were just a figment of her imagination. In other words, she was all like, “Are you crazy? Of course this house isn’t haunted! Where ever did you come up with such an idea?” (not a direct quote). But the court disagreed. They basically told her, “You can’t go around telling the press you’ve got a ghost, and then all of a sudden claim you don’t just to make a sale. You’ve got a haunted house, so don’t try to deny it.” (Again, not a direct quote.) But here is a direct quote for you: “…as a matter of law, the house is haunted.” Weird, right? But, does the fact that the house is haunted mean that Ackley was required to disclose this?

Moral Contracts

There is nothing worse than having a family member promise you something only to have him later say, “Haha, sucker, April Fool’s.” In the pivotal case of Hamer v. Sidway, 124 N.Y. 538, William E. Story II found this out the hard way. William E. Story the original, and also the uncle of II, told his nephew that all he had to do to get $5,000 (which is basically a whole lot of money seeing as how this case is really old) was to keep away from tobacco, alcohol, swearing, and playing billiards and cards for money — so basically don’t have fun — until he turned 21.

II really wanted that money, so he accepted and completed the challenge. When he turned 21, he asked for his money and was told the uncle wanted to hold onto it until the nephew was a little older, but he would get it with interest. So the uncle held onto it and held onto it until eventually he died still holding onto it. II transferred his interest to his wife who transferred her interest to someone else who said to the estate something like, “Hey, where’s my money?” They answered by basically saying, “What? You thought that was a real contract? Hahahahahaha…” with the laughter continuing for a while. This, of course, led to the interest holder going to court. But of course I’m not telling you the result of the court case here.

It’s Raining Cows and Torts

Whenever I am having a bad day, I just say “Well, at least a cow hasn’t fallen on my head today.” Because, let’s be honest, nothing that happened to me is as bad as that. On April 15, 1954 Fannie Guthrie could legitimately claim that she had a bad day because she couldn’t say that a cow hadn’t fallen on her head. In Guthrie v. Powell, 178 Kan. 589, Torts students learn about a fun little legal term: res ipsa loquitur. I’m not going to go into the legalese of that, but what I will tell you is this: if someone is on the first floor of a building where a public sale is taking place, has permission to be there, and is just generally minding her own business when unexpectedly (because there is no way to expect this) a six-hundred pound steer located on the second floor falls through the ceiling and lands on said someone, that person likely will sue using the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur.

I told my sister about this case, and she asked me a very logical question, one that most people would ask when hearing about a steer landing on a lady: “Oh no! Was the steer hurt?”

Courtesy of gifsoup.

Is Sexual Healing a Criminal (Law) Offense?

Since you all are going to law school, and not medical school, you may not yet know the following wisdom I am about to impart on you: if a “doctor” calls you out of the blue and tells you that you have a fatal disease that can only be cured by an expensive, painful surgery or by having sex with a donor inoculated with the vaccine, do not go have sex with that donor. There is actually no disease for which this is a recognized cure, I’m sorry to tell you. Unfortunately for Ms. R, she did not have me to guide her, and so she, not being a doctor and not being insured, felt she had no choice but to pay this donor to inject her. Turns out, this was all a fraud, so she called rape. But did the judge rule in her favor? Find out in Boro v. Superior Court, 163 Cal. App. 3d 1224.

Satan, Standing, and Civil Procedures

Satan and his staff are all pretty evil. So, it should be a safe bet to say that if you sue the devil, you are going to win (in court — I’m not speculating on what will happen to you when he gets you out from underneath the long arm of the law). However, in order to sue him, you have to be able to find him, because how else are you going to serve him his papers? Short of sending a poor clerk to the pits of hell, what should be done to make Satan pay for his crimes? Well, you can find out how to sue Satan in United States ex rel. Gerald Mayo v. Satan and His Staff, 54 F.R.D. 282, where Mayo claimed that the devil had, among other things, deprived him of some constitutional rights. (Or you can find out that you can’t sue Satan because of the very fact that they couldn’t serve process on Satan, but since I promised no spoilers, I won’t tell you which happened here.)

Courtesy of GIPHY.

So see? Law school isn’t always daunting and scary. Unless, of course, you’re scared of Satan, ghosts, and flying cows.

Ashley Shaw

Ashley Shaw is an Alabama native and current New Jersey resident. A graduate of both Kennesaw State University and Thomas Goode Jones School of Law, she spends her free time reading, writing, boxing, horseback riding, playing trivia, flying helicopters, playing sports, and a whole lot else. So maybe she has too much spare time. Contact Ashley at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Weird, True, and Freaky: Law School Edition appeared first on Law Street.

“Change is the law of life,” John F. Kennedy said. And assuming this to be true, 76-year-old Andres Carrasco and his attorney should have been expecting what just happened to them. When Carrasco received a settlement against his former insurance company, I can only assume he was more than pleased (though I don’t know the exact amount of the settlement, so maybe he wasn’t as pleased as I might think.) At any rate, what I do know is that this man was going to get more than $20,000. And boy did he get it!

Change Would Do You Good

After receiving a check for part, Carrasco’s lawyer, Antonio Gallo, was surprised to have eight people deliver 17 buckets worth of change to his lobby. (Probably what happened was the insurance company was at home the night before watching a re-run of Parks and Rec’s “End of the World” and got mixed up with Andy Dwyer’s declaration of “Nickels! I want nickels! A billion nickels!” for something Mr. Gallo had said earlier that day. Honest mistake.)

Courtesy of GIPHY.

As Gallo has apparently never won that competition where you guess how many jelly beans are in a jar, he refused to accept the delivery on the grounds that he couldn’t ascertain whether the full payment was there. Not to be deterred, the deliverers apparently still left the coins and bolted, ensuring Mr. Carrasco and future Carrasco generations would be equipped to go through tolls or hit the laundry mat for generations to come.

Gallo has asked that the insurance company, which must have a really big swear jar it was trying to empty, send a check and pick up its coin buckets — though if I were him, I would first sort through the bucket of pennies to see if there are any lucky ones in there. If not, they will be forced to count the change — so hopefully they don’t have one of those annoying people who start saying numbers  while you are counting to mess you up…I’d hate for them to have counted out to 15 or 16 thousand dollars or so only to have to start all over. If the money is short, they will have to go back to court to get the rest, as well as the coin counting costs.

Weird as this payment is, the really weird part is that it isn’t as weird as you might think. The insurance company that paid Mr. Carrasco (Adriana’s Insurance for those wishing to avoid a similar fate) was not the first or even the second to literally nickel and dime someone. Take, just as one example, Brian Kiros who once got so mad at his bill for back taxes that he drove to ten different banks to collect more than 30,000 pennies — and then spent hours unrolling said pennies to really make the government pay.

Money (That’s What I Want)

Other than just the pure annoyance of coin payments, I do see another potential pitfall. What if someone were to do something like, say, for example, sue for every penny on the earth? Then, everybody who just got more pennies than they know what to do with could be in jeopardy of losing the money they just worked so hard to receive and count and carry to the bank and stress about.

That’s just silly, though. Since nobody would ever sue for every penny in the world, penny payees have nothing to worry about, right? Wait. Somebody is suing for all the world’s pennies?

Okay, okay. That isn’t fair. He isn’t specifically asking for every penny in the world, as the media is incorrectly reporting. That would be ludicrous. So, I guess all the penny holders are safe. All Mr. Anton Purisma is really asking for is for 2 undecillion dollars (that’s $2,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000) or, in other words, more money than currently exists in the world. So basically, if he wins, we better all start emptying out our pockets because this man isn’t just after our pennies.

Courtesy of GIPHY.

Now obviously, to be worthy of all the money in the world plus a whole lot more, the suit is going to be one that is so horrible and makes us feel so bad for Mr. Purisma, that we are all going to get a collection going to just get him through the lawsuit and none of us will have any problem handing over our life’s savings. Well, the man isn’t suing just one person or for just one incident. So, let’s examine some of the more atrocious acts performed on this man that makes him deserve this settlement:

• A rabid dog bit his finger;
• A Chinese couple took a picture of him without permission; and
• LaGuardia airport always overcharges him for coffee.

All of these events added to “civil rights violations, personal injury, discrimination on national origin, retaliation, harassment, fraud, attempted murder, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and conspiracy to defraud.” So, yeah. I think he deserves a huge payment for his stress.

Mr. Purisma, who has sued many, many times before, represented himself (because, well, duh. Who else was going to take the case? I mean, a lawyer who works on a commission might make half an undecillion dollars or something, but then they’d just have to give it right back to Mr. Purisma since he won way more than actually exists in the entire universe — assuming any extraterrestrials out there have separate forms of currency and probably even if they have the same currency — and he’d probably want to pay his lawyer with the portion of the award that doesn’t actually exist). But proving once again the injustice of our judicial system, the court dropped the case without even giving Mr. Purisma his day in court or a jury of his peers…as if they think the case is frivolous or something.

The real losers in this story are Mr. Carrasco and his like. They needed Mr. Purisma to win so that they wouldn’t have to visit a CoinStar. But while I truly feel for Mr. Purisma, I do have some bills due and it might have been awkward if I had to call them up with that lame, overused excuse that “this guy took all my money when he won all the world’s coinage so I won’t be able to pay you this month.” I don’t think they’ll accept that again.

—

Ashley Shaw (@Smoldering_Ashes) is an Alabama native and current New Jersey resident. A graduate of both Kennesaw State University and Thomas Goode Jones School of Law, she spends her free time reading, writing, boxing, horseback riding, playing trivia, flying helicopters, playing sports, and a whole lot else. So maybe she has too much spare time.

Featured Image Courtesy of [filigran via Flickr]

Ashley Shaw

Ashley Shaw is an Alabama native and current New Jersey resident. A graduate of both Kennesaw State University and Thomas Goode Jones School of Law, she spends her free time reading, writing, boxing, horseback riding, playing trivia, flying helicopters, playing sports, and a whole lot else. So maybe she has too much spare time. Contact Ashley at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Sue Big, Win Chump Change appeared first on Law Street.

You know that sinking feeling you get when you dig your hands into your pockets for your keys, but come out with nothing but lint? After a long hard day, nothing is worse than being helplessly locked out of your apartment. Locksmiths are expensive, often ranging from $35 to $150, and may be even more depending on your location and what time you call. App developers in New York believe they have found the solution to this problem with a new service called KeyMe.

KeyMe is an iPhone app that allows users to photograph their keys and upload them to the company’s servers. After the photo is taken, users can make copies in one of KeyMe’s five conveniently located kiosks around NYC. For the low price of $10, KeyMe customers can walk to a kiosk, wait 30 seconds for a brand new key, and then return home. To me, the idea sounds pretty clever: creating a cloud that you can upload your key to, and providing stores around the city that can cut them for you in a matter of seconds. There are absolutely no flaws in that, right?

Wrong. Andy Greenberg, a reporter for WIRED, wrote a step-by-step account of how he was able to copy his neighbors key without him noticing, cut a copy at a nearby KeyMe kiosk, and later “break” into his house. Greenberg says:

Such services also enable jerks like me to steal your keys any time they get a moment alone with them. Leave your ring of cut-brass secrets unattended on your desk at work, at a bar table while you buy another round, or in a hotel room, and any stranger–or friend– can upload your keys to their online collection.

While it’s convenient for those of us who frequently forget our keys, the app also poses some alarming security risks.

Greenberg is absolutely right–now that I know there is an app out there that can create a copy of my key, I think I’ll find it extremely hard to trust anybody with it. No more throwing down the keys to my friends to let them in, no more hanging them at the door, and certainly no more trusting valets. Unfortunately, KeyMe allows the most simplest of simpletons to become a thief, and I can’t blame them–it’s far too easy. From what I can tell, Greenberg has been the only person to admit to using KeyMe to break into someones house, but that will probably change as soon as KeyMe gains traction.

The app also has the potential to wipe out the locksmith industry entirely. Much like what Uber is doing to the taxi business, KeyMey’s user-friendly and convenient service may have the ability to disrupt the market. As more and more services shift to mobile devices, one can imagine of the possibilities to come in the near future. The recent trend toward mobility and instant gratification may also have a negative side; are services like KeyMe causing people to sacrifice security for convenience?

Greg Marsh, CEO of KeyMe, told WIRED that, “digitally reproducing keys is safer than other methods because it leaves a digital trail with KeyMe’s account information, credit card records, and its kiosk fingerprint scanners.” While those are all very valid points, Mr. Marsh, I hadn’t heard of KeyMe until a couple of days ago. If I were robbed I would assume it was done the old fashioned way–by picking the lock or breaking a window. The last thing I would think is that someone took a photo of my key, copied it at the Rite-Aid down the street, and then waltzed through the front door to rob me blind.

Marsh’s advice to his future users is “to be prudent with where they have their keys and store them, similar to a password.” This is pretty obvious advice–even before the introduction of KeyMe, criminals still had the ability to steal a key, copy it, and return it before the person even noticed. But KeyMe just made it simpler for them–instead of going through the trouble of copying the key or stealing it, they merely have to take a picture. With a click of a button you now have access to someone’s valuables. All I can say is that KeyMe might be facing a lot of lawsuits in the upcoming years.

—

Trevor Smith

Featured image courtesy of [Moyan Brenn via Flickr]

Trevor Smith

Trevor Smith is a homegrown DMVer studying Journalism and Graphic Design at American University. Upon graduating he has hopes to work for the US State Department so that he can travel, learn, and make money at the same time. Contact Trevor at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The New Key to Breaking and Entering appeared first on Law Street.

I’m a messy eater — ask anyone who knows me. I can make a mess while eating plain bread. So if there is anyone who knows the importance of a steady supply of napkins, it’s me. And also Webster Lucas. Especially Webster Lucas. Because when he asks for napkins, he isn’t playing around.

Lucas recently filed suit against McDonald’s. McDonald’s has been sued many times, so this may not in itself surprise you; however, the claim in the suit just might. Lucas, having received only one napkin with his Quarter Pounder, asked for some additional ones. Instead of getting so many complimentary napkins that he couldn’t possibly use them all, thus ensuring a solid supply of backup napkins for the road as given by every other Mickey D’s, Lucas was told to make do with what he had. So he is now suing for $1.5 million.

Courtesy of Quickmeme.

(I don’t know any napkin synonyms, so please bear with me while I overuse of the word – it is hard to talk about a napkin scandal without constantly saying ‘napkin.’)

The Story

Lucas went to McDonald’s to eat, not to argue about napkins. I know this because when the napkin debacle occurred, he told his server this very thing. (As I usually go to fast food chains with the intention of getting in a fiery debate over a ketchup packet at the very least, I find Lucas’ plan here very strange.) Lucas pointed out that he should have gone to Jack in the Box, where napkins are apparently given in a non-Grinch manner. Unfortunately for him, Lucas did not go to Jack in the Box and he did argue about napkins, so overall the food trip was less than a success.

Lucas, a self-described clean person, realized two things at the beginning of this doomed hamburger visit: 1.) His table was crumb filled, and 2.) He only had one napkin. He wanted that napkin to wipe down the table, but he didn’t want to be left with just his shirt to clean his hands when he actually got to eat, so he went to the counter and asked for more. Employee Angel Arciga refused the request.

Courtesy of Tumblr.

(Quick aside: Was the napkin dispenser empty? Because how else would this happen? I need this to be explained as it’s driving me crazy.)

Lucas should actually be grateful that his problem was only a lack of cleaning material, by the way. In a London KFC, a boy was served a deep-fried paper towel, and I bet he wishes that place had a “wipe your hands on your shirt” policy in place.

After being turned down, Lucas claimed that Arciga began to have an attitude with him. When Lucas asked him why he was being so hostile, the man began to curse and mumble under his breath.

Despite how thankful he should be at not being served napkin for dinner, Lucas asked to talk to the manager and was aghast to learn that he already was. He got Arciga’s name, after a lot of “playing around” about the spelling, and left to go shoot off an email to Arciga’s higher ups about their customer service, or lack thereof.

The general manager of the store responded with a simple apology, a promise to investigate, and an offer of free food – there was no mention of whether free napkins came with the free burgers though, so I do not blame Lucas for being a little leery.

Courtesy of Wifflegif.

Mr. Lucas then talked to Arciga again, who apparently was asleep during customer service training class, and was again offended by his attitude. Because of his mental anguish and the intentional infliction of mental distress, Lucas was unable to work. This means he needed another source of income and getting $1.5 million from McDonald’s seemed a reasonable alternative, or, at the very least, he assumed that with that much money he could just use some measly twenties when his hands got a little greasy. Either way, the situation led to the suit at hand.

The Motive

Part of Lucas’ claim was that napkin-gate was racially motivated. That was his only rationale as to why his request was refused, and as I personally cannot think of many other good reasons, I have to concede that he might be right. (Though my other thought is that perhaps the store was almost or completely out of said napkins and, as the manager, Arciga was incredibly embarrassed at his lack of proper inventory stocking thus making him unable to divulge the shortage to a customer. But that’s just pure speculation on my part.)

Lucas, an African American, was eating at a place “filled with Mexican Americans,” Arciga being one. In fact, Lucas asked if this was all “because [he was] black,” and claimed that Arciga mumbled something under his breath – the only understandable words being “you people.”

Which brings me to a serious point directed to all businesses dealing with customers: take claims of discrimination seriously. It may seem like just a napkin, but one restaurant’s napkin is another man’s $1.5 million lawsuit. So make sure to give proper training, and when a customer complains about service, actually do something about it instead of making vague assurances.

Will McDonald’s have to fork over a million and a half dollars for its napkin drought? I’d say no – though sometimes a ruling will surprise and possibly offend you. However, I feel safe in saying that even if Lucas doesn’t win his suit or doesn’t get as much money as he wanted, the time, bad press, legal fees, and everything else that goes into a legal proceeding makes these the most expensive napkins in the history of the world. Though if we’re including paper towels…

—

Ashley Shaw (@Smoldering_Ashes) is an Alabama native and current New Jersey resident. A graduate of both Kennesaw State University and Thomas Goode Jones School of Law, she spends her free time reading, writing, boxing, horseback riding, playing trivia, flying helicopters, playing sports, and a whole lot else. So maybe she has too much spare time.

Featured imaged courtesy of [anaxolootl via Flickr]

Ashley Shaw

Ashley Shaw is an Alabama native and current New Jersey resident. A graduate of both Kennesaw State University and Thomas Goode Jones School of Law, she spends her free time reading, writing, boxing, horseback riding, playing trivia, flying helicopters, playing sports, and a whole lot else. So maybe she has too much spare time. Contact Ashley at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Case of the Million Dollar Napkins appeared first on Law Street.

Since I love baseball and it’s All Star week in the MLB, I decided that this week’s post would be about America’s favorite pastime. I could have gone the route of talking about Andrew Robert Rector, who is suing just about everybody in the baseball world for $10 million because he says announcers trash-talked him when he fell asleep at a Yankees-Red Sox game. Funny as that story is, however, everybody is talking about it. I like to be unique, and I knew there had to be a whole lot of other baseball stories out there. Lucky for you, I found some weird ones.

Just a Little Outside

If you’ve ever watched or gone to a baseball game, you know that there are a lot of balls flying around, as well as broken bat pieces and whole bats soaring through the air. And let’s not forget that a player might fall into the first few rows as he reaches over to make a spectacular catch.

If you are lucky enough to get a good seat at a major league game, you better be on guard. Even the seats warn you: watch out or you just might get hit. The bleachers at little league fields, though, usually don’t come with this warning. Elizabeth Lloyd, a New Jersey resident, probably wishes they did.

A few years ago, she was sitting at a table near a fenced bullpen when the catcher, warming up a pitcher, made an errant throw. The ball left the playing area and hit Lloyd in the face. She reacted in a totally rational manner and decided to sue the 11-year-old boy (13 by the time the suit was filed). I assume she was only trying to teach him the valuable life lesson that some people are horrible and like to do ridiculous, awful things like sue kids. I doubt he has the good sense to appreciate her help, though.

Lloyd is suing for $150,000 for her medical costs alone. Add onto this all of the money she “deserves” for her pain and suffering and what her husband expects for loss of consortium, and I really hope this kid has an extremely good allowance.

The suit claims that the boy’s throw was intentional, Lloyd was “assaulted and battered,” the throw was negligent and careless, and — I’m not making this up — the injury was caused by “inappropriate physical and/or sporting activity.” And I always thought that throwing a ball on a ball field or its practice areas was where you were supposed to play.

On top of all this, Lloyd is demanding a jury trial. I think that’s really ballsy. I certainly wouldn’t want to try to convince a whole group of people that the cute kid who was playing an innocent sport instead of being out causing mayhem in the community should be punished.

I’ve seen enough major league baseball games to know that those million dollar salaries don’t always mean perfect aim and control. I’ve seen errors that would shock even the most sports illiterate. And when these stupid errors occur, I hear announcers make the same type comment over and over.

“It’s like watching a little league game.”

“I haven’t seen that bad an error since little league.”

“He’s the best at his position in the league, but that play was straight out of little league.”

Courtesy of DEADSPIN.

That’s right, people. Little leaguers aren’t yet at that major league level of almost-but-not-quite perfect. They make a lot of errors, such as throwing a ball to a place or toward a person that they didn’t mean to throw it.

There is this thing called the “baseball rule,” which basically says you cannot sue for injuries caused by events that happen on the field because, since you know there is good risk you’ll get injured, you assume the risk when you attend. Shouldn’t this rule apply all the way down to those players who have less talent and skill than the big leaguers? I hope for the sake of this player and his family that this court thinks so.

There’s No Crying in Baseball

The problem with little league sports is that there is a lot of whining and temper tantrums involved. But since it’s a bunch of young kids playing, that is to be expected.

One such temper tantrum took place recently in California. A 14-year-old boy scored the game-winning run and, for some child-like, immature reason, he had the nerve to get excited. In his ridiculous happiness, he threw off his helmet to celebrate with his teammates and rudely threw it in the air — something every no professional player would ever do — admittedly after being told not to.

Courtesy of GIPHY.

As the helmet landed, it hit Alan Beck in the ankle, sending him into a major hissy fit. To be fair, the helmet allegedly tore his Achilles tendon, so I’d probably be a little upset, too; however, I most likely would not sue. I’m not a 14-year-old boy, though. Then again, this suer wasn’t either. He was a little bit older than the rest of the players, which is why he was coaching the team instead of playing on it.

Yep, the coach sued the player for $500,000. According to his lawyer, the coach has a case because “a guy who volunteers his time to coach should not be subjected to someone who throws a helmet in the manner that he did.” What? So what I’m hearing is that a baseball coach shouldn’t be subjected to normal baseball celebrations.

According to CBS Sports, the suit will likely be dropped for the above mentioned baseball rule, but even better, the coach said that he would simply drop the case – if the boy apologized.

The boy did what I would do in the same situation. He said no way! I wouldn’t apologize to a cry baby, either. I do hope, though, that the case is dropped before the family has to dish out any more money defending itself.

If you want to do a little research, there are a lot of these “sue little leaguers for not being perfect” cases out there. I never thought I’d have to say this, but can we all stop suing kids for ridiculous things? And happy second half of the baseball season: may your team win so long as your team is my team!

—

Ashley Shaw (@Smoldering_Ashes) is an Alabama native and current New Jersey resident. A graduate of both Kennesaw State University and Thomas Goode Jones School of Law, she spends her free time reading, writing, boxing, horseback riding, playing trivia, flying helicopters, playing sports, and a whole lot else. So maybe she has too much spare time.

Featured Image Courtesy of [Edwin Martinez via Flickr]

Ashley Shaw

Ashley Shaw is an Alabama native and current New Jersey resident. A graduate of both Kennesaw State University and Thomas Goode Jones School of Law, she spends her free time reading, writing, boxing, horseback riding, playing trivia, flying helicopters, playing sports, and a whole lot else. So maybe she has too much spare time. Contact Ashley at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post For the Love of the Game: Lawsuits and Little League appeared first on Law Street.

All anyone seems to talk about recently is the Hobby Lobby case and women’s reproductive rights. I think this is grossly unfair. Yes, I agree that women’s health is important; but in all the hustle and bustle, we have forgotten about the other half of the population and their delicate reproductive systems. So, I’m going to bring those deprived, long-ignored men’s issues to the spotlight and finally give them the attention they deserve.

First, some background information that you just might not know:

• A man’s reproductive health is apparently directly linked to his fragile self-esteem. Take, for example, the policeman who sued rapper Meek Mill. Mill allegedly made derogatory comments in the press about the officer, which the cop claimed resulted in his boys in blue losing the heat they were formally packing. This just goes to show that men need a lot of (ego) stroking to remain functional.
• Long ago in France, women could sue for divorce if their husbands had ED. How, you ask, would they be able to prove this? Well, it turns out women didn’t have to prove anything. In a reversal on the old ‘innocent until proven guilty’ credo, it was the man’s job to prove he didn’t have a problem. In the infamous impotence trials, men might request a Trial by Congress allowing them to prove they could perform in the bedroom by, well, performing in the bedroom…in front of the court.
• In India, impotence was legally classified as mental cruelty. I think we can all agree with that. The frustration and shame that this causes is torturous (I assume), and I can understand why a court would say Mother Nature is a cruel mistress for causing it. Oh, wait…it’s mental cruelty caused by the man to his wife? Well, those poor men – it’s just never about them.

Now that you see that men all around the world and throughout time have been mistreated and hurt by their lack of reproductive support, I’m sure you will agree that women have been given way too much attention in the healthcare arena as of late.

Courtesy of Tumblr.

To help change that, I am going to tell you about a couple of lawsuits that resulted when the healthcare industry failed men and their genital health.

The Short Story

The first suit takes place across the border in Canada where a man was rushed to a Montreal hospital with a “fractured appendage.” Details of how the fracture occurred were not given, but what is known is that the injury happened while the man was performing his husbandly duties.

He went to the hospital with great faith that the experienced doctors would be able to help him. The doctors decided that surgery was needed and promptly acted to bring this man out of his misery.

Sadly for him, the procedure had some unintended effects: it left an ugly scar, it stopped him from having intimate relations with his wife, and, maybe worse than anything else, the doctors, like all my hairstylists, trimmed off more than was requested. He allegedly ended up an inch shorter, and unlike my hair, he can’t just wait two weeks for it to grow back. After all this, his unsatisfied wife left, presumably to find a man more able to meet her sizable needs.

The man is now suing the hospital for its alleged negligence and his “indescribable anguish.” The question now becomes, just how is he going to prove his claims? I hope for his sake he has before and after shots.

The Never-Ending Story

This next suit took place in Delaware where a truck driver needed some help getting his motor started: to get back to business, he jump-started his equipment with penile implant surgery.

After the surgery, the man’s ED was gone so you might think to yourself, “Success! Good for that lucky devil!” Unfortunately, the surgery left him with a new concern: he could shift into high gear but couldn’t get back to neutral.

If you have ever seen a Viagra commercial then you know that if your erection lasts more than four hours, you should probably contact a doctor. This trucker must not be a late-night television watcher, though, because he didn’t contact the hospital until a firm eight months had passed.

That’s right: he had an eight-month erection. That’s real stamina.

The doctors claimed they weren’t entirely at fault because the man should have come to them sooner, like maybe when, after the surgery, his “scrotum swelled to volleyball size.” Anyway, another surgery fixed the current problem and a third surgery fixed the initial problem, but it still left the man with bad memories and a lot of medical bills.

The angry driver did what any man who suffered from eight months of hardship would do: he began a medical malpractice suit alleging negligence on the part of the doctors.

I’m sad to say that once again our legal system failed to protect the sexual health and well-being of our male population: it took less than two hours for a jury of his peers to decide that there was no negligence.

I’m all for civil justice, but I think we cannot reach equality until we consider all people. Stand up for men’s rights today!

Courtesy of Tumblr.

—

Ashley Shaw (@Smoldering_Ashs) is an Alabama native and current New Jersey resident. A graduate of both Kennesaw State University and Thomas Goode Jones School of Law, she spends her free time reading, writing, boxing, horseback riding, trivia, flying helicopters, playing sports, and a whole lot else. So maybe she has too much spare time.

Featured image courtesy of [Hammerin Man via Flickr]

Ashley Shaw

Ashley Shaw is an Alabama native and current New Jersey resident. A graduate of both Kennesaw State University and Thomas Goode Jones School of Law, she spends her free time reading, writing, boxing, horseback riding, playing trivia, flying helicopters, playing sports, and a whole lot else. So maybe she has too much spare time. Contact Ashley at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Penile Code: The Unappreciated Plight of Men’s Reproductive Health appeared first on Law Street.

What do Illinois nuns and a New Jersey doctor have in common? Obviously the answer must be strip clubs. Strip clubs: some nuns can’t live with them, one doctor can’t live without them…mainly because when he tries to leave, they just lure him back in.

Exotic dancers are the stars of this post because they live wild lives resulting in legal hijinks that will amuse even the most button up among us. (Hopefully this short strip tease has been enough to get you to keep reading.)

Nuns, Noise, Neon Lights

If you’ve ever been to a club (I’m just talking about a regular club right now, we’ll get to the strip part in just a bit), then you know that electro-pop, techno-y dance music is loud. Like, get in your head, you can’t think of anything else and you certainly can’t hold a conversation with someone loud.

Now, close your eyes and picture yourself out on the dance floor, or even right outside the club, pulsating music pounding through your veins. No matter how much you might want to, don’t start to dance. Instead, sit down and say your nightly prayer. Can you do it?

Well, the Missionary Sisters of St. Charles Borromeo Scalabrinians say they have been trying this exercise for quite some time now, and the answer is no, they cannot pray in this environment. Bordering strip joint, Club Allure, was open less than a year before the nuns decided to bring suit alleging that the club broke a state law requiring an adult-entertainment facility to be at least 1,000 feet from a place of worship. And just in case nobody wants to enforce that pesky law, the nuns are also saying this place is just a good old-fashioned public nuisance.

Club Allure claims that there are no police records supporting the sisters’ nuisance claim and that they have done nothing wrong. It is their intent to fight the nuns — I feel wrong even just typing that. So, the debate will move to the courts: are the neon lights, used condoms, and overall debauchery that plague the sisters on the regular – according to their claim – enough to shut down this scintillating business? Or will the sisters have to find a way to love their permanent neighbors?

Love and Loss

Don’t you hate it when strippers drug you and run up charges on your corporate card? Don’t you also hate it when you say you weren’t at the strip club on the nights charges were racked up, and are then told there is video surveillance of you actually being there?

If you hate those things, then you and Dr. Zyad K. Younan have a lot in common. Younan allegedly visited an elite gentleman’s club, Scores, four times in a 10-day period, racking up around $135,000 in food, drink, and…how best to put this…. ‘other’ charges. Only, instead of paying the tab or, if he couldn’t afford to pay, washing dishes in the back room like the rest of us poor slobs who can’t afford our bills, Younan decided to try contesting the charges with an impossibly absurd story. He claimed he didn’t owe the money because he wasn’t there and even if he was, he only spent money after being drugged out of his mind by the women. If this seems to be an elaborate “nana-nana-boo-boo, Scores, I’m not paying, and you can’t make me {sticks out tongue},” then keep reading for the secret, crazy plot twist.

If strip clubs didn’t need to constantly worry about lawsuits from nuns, then maybe Scores would have just let this drop. It turns out, however, that nuns are litigious and apparently so are strip joints. Scores sued Younan for the balance.

Addressing their upcoming suit and Younan’s claims of innocence, club spokesman Stephan Hyman addressed Younan’s drug complaint by asking the very question I wondered myself: If Younan was drugged that first night, then “why did he come back three more times? If he didn’t have a good time the first time, he should have stayed home the next three times.”

It turns out there is a legitimate possible answer: maybe Dr. Younan WAS ACTUALLY TELLING THE TRUTH!

A couple of months after this story placed Younan in an uncomfortable tabloid spotlight, the DEA and the New York police uncovered a ring of stripper-crooks who went to upscale bars and lured unsuspecting men back to strip clubs, Scores being one, spiked their drinks with drugs such as Molly, and then got them to sign off on huge bills in their druggy haze. And guess who their biggest alleged victim was: one Dr. Zyad K. Younan.

While the strippers have all been arraigned, there are no pending charges against the clubs themselves. And, as of a few weeks ago, Scores has not dropped the lawsuit. Will the strippers be convicted? Will Scores be paid? Will the doctor be vindicated? Only time will tell who has the best case: the strippers or the surgeon.

What I know is that, between the fun nun lawsuit and the stripper-con trials, I need someone to tell me why people always want to get out of jury duty. It seems like court would be a fun place to spend the day – as long as you bring a stack of ones.

Courtesy of Giphy

—

Ashley Shaw (@Smoldering_Ashs) is an Alabama native and current New Jersey resident. A graduate of both Kennesaw State University and Thomas Goode Jones School of Law, she spends her free time reading, writing, boxing, horseback riding, trivia, flying helicopters, playing sports, and a whole lot else. So maybe she has too much spare time.

Featured image courtesy of [Geralt via Pixabay]

Ashley Shaw

Ashley Shaw is an Alabama native and current New Jersey resident. A graduate of both Kennesaw State University and Thomas Goode Jones School of Law, she spends her free time reading, writing, boxing, horseback riding, playing trivia, flying helicopters, playing sports, and a whole lot else. So maybe she has too much spare time. Contact Ashley at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Strip Suits: Exotic Dancers in Court appeared first on Law Street.

A contentious court battle has left California teachers in need of a new tenure system, after the California Supreme Court ruled that the current model does not allow all students equal access to education.

Back in February, nine students sued the school system. The students argued that the process by which teachers receive tenure and the way teachers are distributed to schools created inequity in the education received by minority students with lower income status.

One of the first things the ruling  references is Brown v. Board of Education, a landmark case that stated all students must have equal opportunity and access to education under the 14th Amendment– specifically, the equal protection clause. The case looked at three facets of the system: the 2 year tenure track, firing process, and “last in, first out” policy that led to newest teachers automatically being laid off first– regardless of how effective they were. All of these policies were found to be unconstitutional.

Furthermore, the court argued the minority and low-income students were disproportionately affected by these policies.

So, what are the implications of this ruling?

1. Other states will see similar lawsuits

California is not the only state that has rules like these, so it’s only a matter of time before other states are faced with people challenging their tenure laws, as well. It will be interesting to see if all states rule the same way- in all likelihood, they will not. Some might say these kinds of tenure programs are not unconstitutional, which could lead to drastically different tenure models in each state. There is also the possibility that some groups will try to appeal rulings to the Supreme Court. That’s still pretty far off, though.

2. Unions may get more creative in protecting teachers

This ruling does not remove the possibility of a tenure system for teachers, but makes clear that the system currently in place is unconstitutional. California, and other states who want to be proactive, will need to reassess the ways they protect their teachers. For example, the track to tenure may need to take more time, the firing process may need to get simpler, and newer teachers might not automatically be the first to go during layoffs. Of course, this ruling did not provide any specific limitations or recommendations for what changes should be made, so that debate will have to take place in the legislature.

3. Not a “fix all” for the education system

Education reform advocates are cheering after this ruling, but it is important that we do not get ahead of ourselves. Getting rid of tenure alone is not going to change the bad schools in California, because there are astronomically large social and bureaucratic barriers that play a much bigger role than this tenure program. As Jesse Rothstein points out in the New York Times op-ed, getting rid of bad teachers and fully integrating students in the classroom are not mutually exclusive. Even with good teachers, issues like poverty and language barriers affect how effective teachers can be in classrooms. While the tenure system certainly impacted students by way of ineffective teachers- even the best teachers in the world will still have a hard time in the most difficult schools.

Whether you consider this a win for students or a loss for teachers, one thing is for certain: no one has the answers to come to a balanced solution. As Judge Treu notes in the final paragraph of his ruling, “It is not the function of this Court to dictate or even advise the legislature as to how to replace the Challenged statutes.” Until state lawmakers come up with a new system, balancing the interests of students and teachers, this ruling might not be a win for anyone.

[CNN] [Court Ruling] [New York Times]

—

Molly Hogan (@molly_hogan13)

Featured image courtesy of [Colleen via Flickr]

Molly Hogan

Molly Hogan is a student at The George Washington University and formerly an intern at Law Street Media. Contact Molly at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Major Ruling in Education: California Must Change Tenure System appeared first on Law Street.