Bizarre legal cases / Funny legal cases / Humorous legal cases:

A Massachusetts specialty beer importer has joined with the Maine Civil Liberties Union in a lawsuit against the Maine Bureau of Liquor Enforcement for denying the importer the right to sell its Christmas-themed "Santa's Butt Winter Porter" ale in the state. The bureau claims the label is "undignified or improper" because it features a beer-drinking Santa Claus sitting (with his backside slightly exposed) on a barrel. The plaintiffs claim the state's denial violates the First Amendment by censoring artistic expression.

"There is no good reason for the state to censor art, even art found on a beer label. Artistic expression is entitled to the highest level of protection under the First Amendment," said Zachary Heiden, staff attorney for the Maine Civil Liberties Union.

An official with the Maine Bureau of Liquor Enforcement declined to comment citing the pending litigation.

Shelton Brothers is involved in another lawsuit over its beer labels, this one in New York where the State Liquor Authority denied applications for six of the importer's holiday-themed beers, claiming the labels appeal to under-aged drinkers. Since filing the lawsuit, the state has backed down and allowed the sale of the beers, but the lawsuit continues to challenge the validity of the regulation and seeks damages for a month's worth of lost sales.

"We are going forward," said Shelton attorney George Carpinello, who said the suit is based on an alleged violation of the company's First Amendment rights. "This hit us right in our prime season."

"The notion that my client is somehow encouraging underage drinking with these labels is ridiculous," he added.

Last year, Shelton Brothers' Seriously Bad Elf English double ale beer was banned in Connecticut because the state found the label too appealing for children because it depicts an elf taking aim at Santa and his sleigh with a slingshot.

—Sources: Business Insurance (Crain Communications) and Daily News (New York)

The Florida Supreme Court removed Seminole County Judge John Sloop from the bench after he jailed 11 people who were late for traffic court. According to reports, the jailed motorists were misdirected to the courtroom, causing them to be late and prompting Judge Sloop to jail them. Before another judge could complete the paperwork to release them, the jailed defendants had been strip searched and spent nine hours behind bars.

In a unanimous opinion, the court ruled that Judge Sloop was unfit to remain on the bench. "Judge Sloop's indifference to the anxiety, humiliation and hardship imposed upon these 11 citizens reflects a callous disregard for others that is among the most egregious examples we have seen of judicial authority and lack of proper judicial temperament," stated the unsigned opinion of the high court.

The justices indicated that the jailing of the misdirected motorists was but the most recent in a series of complaints charged against Judge Sloop. Reportedly, he has been accused of ignoring court rules by refusing to release defendants on minor charges, displaying rude and abusive treatment in his courtroom and displaying a firearm in court.

Judge Sloop admitted he violated judicial canons but blamed his behavior on undiagnosed Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD), for which he is now receiving treatment. The justices, however, concluded it was "too little, too late" because he had "irreparably damaged public confidence in his judicial authority."

A dangerous squirrel is the impetus for a lawsuit filed by a Chicago-area woman against a shopping center. Shopper Marcy Meckler claims she was attacked by a rogue squirrel while walking though a grassy courtyard area of the Old Orchard Shopping Center. According to her lawsuit, filed in Cook County Circuit Court, Meckler claims that she suffered severe injuries after the squirrel jumped up and attached itself to her leg and she fell while trying to escape its grasp.

Meckler is seeking in excess of $50,000 in damages (no details of the alleged injuries are given in the lawsuit), along with an award of costs. She claims that employees of the shopping center knew of the presence of the squirrel, encouraged it to stick around by feeding it, and were negligent in failing to remove it. The Westfield Group (owner of the center), "by and through its agents, employees, servants and security personnel, was aware of the longtime presence of the said squirrel on the premises and allowed the squirrel to remain on the premises, despite the fact that the squirrel had previously attacked and harassed other customers, a fact known to Westfield," the lawsuit claims.

The University of Alabama recently filed a lawsuit against a revered artist who has painted classic pictures of some of the football team's greatest moments. Artist Daniel Moore's paintings have been reproduced in prints and on merchandise, which the university claims violates its trademark. The university has asked a federal judge to forbid Moore from using the colors crimson and white (the school's colors) in his paintings.

"This lawsuit is the equivalent of the Catholic Church suing Michelangelo for painting the Sistine Chapel," said Keith Dunnavant, an Alabama alumnus and the author of "Coach: The Life of Paul 'Bear' Bryant."

Moore has asked Judge R. David Proctor of the Federal District Court in Birmingham to dismiss the case on First Amendment grounds. Moore contends that his prints should receive the same First Amendment protection that newspaper photographs do, adding that "artists were the first journalists."

Despite the fact that the university gave him sideline passes for two decades, Moore, an Alabama alumnus who has two daughters who attend the school, is no longer welcome on game day. "I still love Alabama," he said. "I still love Alabama football. Obviously, I haven't yanked my daughters out of school."

A decision is expected in the next several months and likely will turn on whether the images in Moore's works offer a significant transformative or creative contribution.

A federal lawsuit seeking class-action status has been filed against an Indiana hospital after patients received notice that their medical information was on a computer disk that inadvertently was left in a bag returned to a store. According to news reports, the disk contained names and social security information of about 260,000 patients and about 6,200 employees, board members and physicians associated with Sisters of St. Francis Health Services.

Michael Chaney, one of the individuals who received a letter, filed the lawsuit, charging that the breach of confidentiality violated his right of privacy protected by federal HIPAA rules and the U.S. Constitution. "A lot of people are going to think this is frivolous and all that," Chaney said. "The fact is that the only thing we have any more is our personal privacy."

The suit seeks damages of at least $5,000 for each affected class member and requests that St. Francis and its outside contractor help protect patient information by taking actions such as a credit-monitoring service for those affected.

Michael Englehart, vice president for St. Francis, is reported as saying, "We believe that it is extremely unlikely that the personal records, including name and Social Security numbers of affected individuals, were accessed, used or disclosed for any unauthorized purpose."

According to one legal expert, that may make the case extremely difficult for the plaintiff. "Part of the issue was that law tends to only compensate people for economic harm, as opposed to the harm caused by loss of control of this information," said Lauren Gelman, a lecturer in law and associate director of Center for Internet and Society at Stanford University. "Unfortunately, these suits tend not to be successful unless there's demonstrated harm."

Scott Benkie, Chaney's lawyer, argues: "There's no question there's damages. Every person has to check into their own credit history and make those inquiries to determine whether that information has been breached," he said.

A former justice of the 5^th District Appellate Court in Mount Vernon, Illinois had his defamation lawsuit thrown out by the court on whose bench he once sat. Former Justice Gordon Maag, a Democrat from Madison County, unsuccessfully ran for the Illinois Supreme Court in 2004 and lost a retention vote for his seat on the appeals court. Maag alleged in the lawsuit that a 2004 campaign flyer prepared by the Illinois Coalition for Jobs, Growth and Prosperity unfairly characterized him as soft on crime. At least one flyer said Maag's record on crime was "embarrassing" and "dangerous" and said he "let a murderer back on the streets." The lawsuit was filed against the Coalition, the Illinois Chamber of Commerce and two coalition officers.

Last week, a three judge panel of the appeals court upheld a judge's dismissal of Maag's $110 million defamation suit, ruling that although the flyer included "hysterical hyperbole" that is "insulting to the judicial and electoral process," when a person runs for public office, "he puts his character in issue so far as it relates to his fitness and qualifications for office; therefore his conduct and actions are fair game for comment." Despite opining that the flyer "is full of disparagement and innuendo unbefitting a campaign for judicial office," the court opined further that, "ill-informed, mean-spirited hyperbole is not necessarily defamation per se."

The lawsuit was initially dismissed last year by an outside judge brought in to hear the case. Maag then appealed to his former court. A similar suit is pending in federal court.

News reports indicate that Maag plans to appeal the decision. Maag's attorney indicated that five of the six court decisions attributed to Maag on the flyer had actually been unanimous decisions of a three-judge panel and Maag wrote the majority opinion in only one of the cases.

Doug Whitley, the Illinois Chamber's president, said Thursday's ruling left the defendants "vindicated." "Their decision is a repudiation of a frivolous lawsuit that was aimed at intimidating people who would engage in electoral politics," Whitley said. "It is important that the court again recognizes and defends our rights to exercise free speech and to publicly disseminate information and opinions on candidates for public office in the electoral process."

--Source: Belleville News-Democrat (Illinois) and The Associated Press

A federal jury awarded $24.2 million to two men who trespassed onto railroad property and were severely burned by a 12,500-volt electrical wire in Lancaster, Pennsylvania in August 2002. The two men, who were 17 at the time of the accident, had climbed atop a rail car to get a better view of the town. A live, uninsulated catenary wire, which powers the locomotives, was suspended about 6 feet above the boxcar and delivered a debilitating jolt to Jeffrey Klein, burning over 75 percent of his body. His friend, Brett Birdwell, was burned over 18 percent of his body when he came to his friend's aid.

After an 11-day trial held in U.S. District Court in Philadelphia before Judge Lawrence F. Stengel, the jury agreed with the plaintiffs that the companies should have placed warning signs alerting people to the wires. Defense attorney Paul F.X. Gallagher argued that the teens were old enough to recognize the danger of the wires. Plaintiffs' attorney Joseph Roda countered that, "the boys were trespassing, but the law doesn't give blanket immunity to the landowner. Both Amtrak and Norfolk Southern knew a lethal danger existed but failed to post warning signs."

Klein received $11 million in compensatory damages and Birdwell was awarded $588,000. Punitive damages totaled $12.5 million -- $8.75 million against Amtrak and $3.75 million against Norfolk Southern.

"We're extremely disappointed in the judgment and plan to appeal,'' Rudy Husband, Norfolk Southern's director of public relations stated.

--Source: Lancaster New Era (Pennsylvania)

David Allen Gunther, who claims to be wheelchair-bound, is working overtime to ensure that small businesses in Southern California comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act and California’s tougher version, the Unruh Act. Since 2003, Gunther has filed more than 200 lawsuits against small businesses for violations that have included accessibility barriers, no designated handicapped parking, heavy bathroom doors, or toilet paper dispensers mounted out of easy reach. Each violation carries a $4,000 fine. For all his hard work, it is estimated that Gunther has received more than $400,000 in the last 36 months, mostly from mom-and-pop shops.

According to reports, Gunther’s propensity to sue has come under investigation. In early September, many small business owners, who claim to be Gunther’s victims, met with District Attorney Tony Rackauckas to ask his office to look into what they deem to be extortionist tactics. Examples include a lawsuit against a flower and gift shop owner for failure to have a wheelchair ramp. The lawsuit was eventually dismissed as the owner herself lived with only one leg, was confined to a wheelchair and had a ramp built long before the lawsuit was filed. In another suit, Gunther charged that a local car wash was in violation because he found the bathroom mirror mounted a few inches too high for him to “preen” himself.

The business owners also expressed frustration that their shops had been approved by city inspectors and yet they were still sued by Gunther. “Protecting business owners against frivolous lawsuits is an important priority in my office,” Rackauckas wrote in a letter.

A local newspaper’s investigation turned up quite a record for Gunther, including “evidence that not only has he exaggerated his reliance on a wheelchair, but he’s also whitewashed his own history of chronic unemployment, multiple drug addictions, narcotics trafficking, assaults, petty thefts, burglaries, a decade of missed child support payments, and more than a dozen arrests in jail.”

Gunther’s own lawyer, like so many businesses he has sued, is located on the second floor of a converted house that does not have a wheelchair ramp. According to the lawyer, it would not be practical to make his office accessible to the handicapped. Ironically, he has not been sued by Gunther.

—Source: OC Weekly (Orange County, California)

A California judge has ordered each plaintiff in a lawsuit alleging a defective product to pay the defendant $26,000 to cover some of the defendant's litigation expenses after ruling that the plaintiffs' lawsuit was based on junk science. National Ready Mixed Services, Inc. was sued by 19 homeowners who claimed the defendant's concrete mixes caused foundation defects.

During the trial, the judge excluded from evidence five kinds of tests plaintiffs' expert witnesses submitted. Reports indicate that the tests failed to satisfy generally accepted scientific standards. According to defense expert and civil engineer Geoffrey Hichborn, Sr., "In a past lawsuit, expert witnesses using [such] methods were not able to tell the difference between a concrete sample and a Tums tablet, [or] a diamond and a lump of coal."

Orange County Superior Court Judge David Velasquez concluded in his ruling that the costs to the home owners are appropriate and the award to the defendant reasonable. "Plaintiffs relied in large part on scientific evidence, the general acceptance of which was highly contestable," he wrote. And because "the scientific evidence necessary for each side to produce in the case is very expensive ... there is the great temptation by plaintiffs to use the cost of litigation to bludgeon a settlement out of a defendant ... Increasing the demand at the [June 2004] settlement conference only guaranteed the case would never settle."

The payout represents only about one quarter of the $2 million-plus in defense costs incurred by National RM, but is welcome nonetheless considering the company had offered about $3,000 to each plaintiff in June 2004 to settle the case. National RM attorneys note that a ruling on plaintiffs' liabilities is rare, but permitted under a California law provision whereby plaintiffs can be ordered to reimburse defendants' costs when plaintiffs fail to prove at trial damages of at least the amount of a pre-trial settlement offer.

"This judgment drives home the risk a homeowner takes when initiating litigation based on 'junk science,'" National RM counsel William Ingalsbe said.

A superior court judge in Massachusetts has given the go-ahead to a convicted murderer's lawsuit against his former defense lawyer. Middlesex Superior Court Judge D. Lloyd MacDonald ruled that Daniel Leo Holland's suit against J.W. Carney, Jr. for libel and legal malpractice could go to trial.

Holland, who is serving a life sentence in prison for the 1998 murder of his estranged wife in Quincy, charges that Carney discussed his personal history and the pending case at a legal seminar and in a published section of "Hot Topics in Criminal Law for 2000," which also included more than 100 pages of documents obtained from Holland's public court file.

Holland, who fired Carney before the murder trial, is acting as his own attorney in the civil suit. Holland contends in a 40-page complaint that Carney "maligned him in the eyes of the public" and divulged confidential information without consent to enhance the lawyer's professional reputation. Carney retorts that Holland's conviction for fatally shooting and bludgeoning his wife made his former client impossible to defame.

In allowing the case to move forward, the judge ruled, "Holland cannot be considered libel-proof as a matter of law," because he had not been convicted of any crime when the seminar occurred and the book was published.

Holland is no stranger to litigation. Weeks before his murder trial, he sued a local sheriff, accusing him of blocking a marriage between Holland and a prosecution witness. Prosecutors had charged that Holland sought the marriage simply to take advantage of the law that provides that spouses cannot be forced to testify against each other. That suit was eventually dropped.

In 2004, Holland's son became the first child in state history to "divorce" a parent. Holland eventually agreed to relinquish all parental rights to the boy who was being raised by his mother's best friends.

Lawsuit Against Fast-Food Chains Not Chicken Feed

The Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine (PCRM) has filed a lawsuit in California against seven leading fast-food chains, including McDonald's and Burger King, over their use of a "dangerous carcinogenic" in grilled chicken. According to the lawsuit, every sample of the grilled chicken products "tested positive for a dangerous carcinogenic compound called PhIP," a chemical on the state's list of cancer-causing agents.

Mark Kennedy, staff attorney with PCRM, said the restaurants are violating the state's Proposition 65, which requires them to give a "clear and reasonable warning" about any carcinogens in their food. PCRM seeks to compel the restaurants to warn unsuspecting consumers through in-store posters and menu messages. Although the law carries a fine of $2,500 per violation per day, Kennedy claims, "We're not seeking to punish these restaurants. We just want them to obey the law."

Aside from McDonald's and Burger King, the chains named in the lawsuit were Chick-fil-A, Chili's, Applebee's, Outback Steakhouse and TGI Friday's.

The California Restaurant Association dismissed the lawsuit as groundless and politically motivated. "The PCRM are anti-meat advocates who want to limit consumer choice and limit access to healthy dining options, which grilled chicken most definitely is," association spokeswoman Jordan Traverso said. "There's no evidence that the small amount of PhIP that comes out from cooked grilled chicken poses a health risk to humans," she added.

A Newsweek article in February 2004 stated that less than 5 percent of PCRM's members are doctors and it has ties to the People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals.

—Sources: Wall Street Journal and City News Service

[Posted October 5, 2006]

I Sue, You Sue, We all Sue

A San Antonio, Texas home builder is suing one of its customers. Sitterle Corporation filed a libel suit against homeowner Army Col. Jay Hirata, asking for $500,000 in damages. The company accuses Hirata of writing defamatory statements on a consumer advocacy website about the company's alleged refusal to fix a leak problem in Hirata's home.

The two-year old dispute started after the Hiratas bought the home and soon noticed water leaking into the basement after rains. According to news reports, Sitterle tried to fix the problem. Unsatisfied, the Hiratas filed a formal complaint with the Texas Residential Construction Commission. The Commission's independent inspector sided with the Hiratas.

When Sitterle tried to make repairs, the Hiratas rejected them because the builder was not specific as to what was going to be done. Then the Hiratas sued, claiming they would like Sitterle to either buy back the home or repair the leaking problem in a more conventional manner.

The company defended, saying the Hiratas are at fault for not maintaining the house properly and altering the drainage pattern or soil grade. Sitterle's attorney, William Oliver, says the Hiratas' house no longer leaks.

Last month, the Hiratas posted complaints about Sitterle on the website Home Owners for Better Building. Sitterle filed a defamation suit, charging that "tens of thousands" of people could have read the comments and the company's reputation could be harmed. The comments included such statements as: "We are the victims ... of a company that is unwilling and unable to accept responsibility and accountability for this defective foundation and home. ... Sitterle Corp. does not admit any fault and are unwilling to remedy the situation."

Janet Ahmad, head of the website that posted Hirata's comments, said Sitterle is trying to suppress Hirata's free speech rights.

The Hiratas suit is scheduled to go to trial this week.

—Source: San Antonio Express-News (Texas)

[Posted September 28, 2006]

Judge's Behavior Deemed Unacceptable

Circuit Judge Richard Albritton, Jr. of Panama City, Florida was reprimanded this week by the Florida Supreme Court for 14 admitted ethics violations. Initially accused of 36 violations, Judge Albritton admitted in an agreement with the Judicial Qualifications Commission to 14 violations. He received a public reprimand, will serve a 30-day unpaid suspension, and pay a $5,000 fine and $1,203 in costs.

Among the violations alleged against Albritton include ordering a probationer to attend church, jailing a young mother because she was unable to remember her address, and telling a woman in open court that she "needed to close her legs and stop having babies." In other instances, Judge Albritton asked parents in dependency cases whether they used drugs and if they answered no, he would order a drug test on the spot and jail the parents for contempt if they tested positive. Judge Albritton also admitted to soliciting gifts and invitations to lunch and getting hunting trips from lawyers.

Florida Supreme Court Chief Justice R. Fred Lewis told Albritton that his "behavior was unacceptable. It's a stain on all of us."

—Source: Pensacola News Journal

[Posted September 21, 2006]

Lawsuits Flying Around Over Foie Gras

The Illinois Restaurant Association has joined forces with Chicago-area chefs and restaurants and filed a lawsuit against a ban on foie gras in restaurants. The lawsuit charges that the Chicago City Council's ban oversteps legal authority and is unconstitutional.

The lawsuit argues that the city is violating home rule powers because foie gras is not produced in Chicago. Barry S. Rosen, attorney for the restaurant group, claims the lawsuit is about "the bounds of local government power." Chicago's Mayor Richard M. Daley suggested the ban was the "silliest law" passed by the council.

The Chicago City Council passed the foie gras ban last spring, joining California (ban begins in 2012) and several European countries that have outlawed foie gras. Animal rights' activists claim that foie gras production constitutes animal cruelty because the "fatty liver" is produced by force-feeding grain to ducks and geese with a tube until their liver enlarges to as much as 10 times its normal size.

The lawsuit claims that since foie gras production is approved by the federal government, it should be up to the diners to decide for themselves and the city council should not be allowed to tell diners what they can and cannot eat. Rosen added that Chicago's ban "seeks to outlaw a particular food where there are no health or safety concerns whatsoever, and where the production of that food is entirely lawful."

The ordinance bans only the sale of foie gras, so restaurateurs claim that they can get around it by giving it away or serving it at private parties.

Another foie gras lawsuit was recently filed in New York. This one has The Humane Society seeking to end state subsidies to the nation's foremost foie gras producer. "We're focusing our legal efforts on not only preventing the facility from expanding, we consider them to be in violation of many laws including the cruel food law . . . and eventually we'd like them out of the state," said Society official Carter Dillard.

—Sources: Chicago Sun Times and The New York Post

[Posted September 14, 2006]

Fired for Being Too Fat

A suburban New York school teacher is suing his former employer claiming that he was fired because he was too fat.

Michael Frank, who is 6'4" tall and weighed 325 pounds at the time of his dismissal, charges the school district with violating the Americans with Disabilities Act because obesity is a medical condition. Last fall, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, which reviewed Frank's complaint, agreed that there was "reasonable cause to believe" Frank was discriminated against because of his obesity.

Frank, who taught seventh-grade math for four years at Lawrence Middle School, claims that he had glowing reviews until his tenure hearing. Frank says that the assistant superintendent who evaluated his classroom performance as part of the tenure process told him "you are so big and sloppy" and "your appearance is not conducive to learning."

"It was devastating," Frank said about his firing. "It had nothing to do with my teaching. It had to do with how I looked." Frank's attorney, Scott Gilly, added that "what this case is really about is a fundamental rule that all of us sitting around the dinner table teach our children. Don't judge others by their appearance, but rather by the content of their character and their abilities."

Frank is now working a lower-paying job in a different school district.

—Source: Daily News (New York)

[Posted September 7, 2006]

A Doggone Huge Settlement

The City of San Jose, California, has agreed to pay nearly $800,000 to Hells Angels motorcycle club members to settle claims that police killed three dogs during raids on the club's headquarters and nine members' homes. The 90-police officer raids were in an effort to gather evidence against Steve Tausan, a Hells Angels member who served as a strip club bouncer, accused of killing a patron.

In a civil-rights lawsuit filed by the Hells Angels, the club charged that the dogs were killed after police refused to give owners and caretakers a chance to secure the animals. The Appeals Court ruled that shooting the dogs violated constitutional protections against unreasonable search and seizure.

"We sincerely hope the city will engage in changes to its policy and training to make sure that this doesn't happen again," said Karen Snell, one of the club's lawyers.

San Jose Chief of Police Rob Davis said that since the court's ruling, police now make plans to avoid shooting dogs at homes being searched.

Mr. Tausan was acquitted of murder by a jury.

—Source: San Jose Mercury News (California)

[Posted August 31, 2006]

Doughnut Offer Leaves Big Hole

A convicted child molester in Washington State is getting a new trial because the judge accepted a juror's offer of a doughnut and other food from a jury-room potluck.

According to the Court of Appeals' decision in Washington v. DeGroff, the exchange of food "opened a line of communication" between judge and jurors that "undermined the integrity" of the trial. Judge Richard Strophy, who has been on the bench for 20 years, was faulted for having contact with jurors outside the presence of the defendant.

Additionally, the Appellate Court found troubling the fact that Judge Strophy met with another juror in his chambers to discuss the juror's request to be dismissed due to a scheduling conflict. Judge Strophy's impartiality was also questioned because he responded to a note received from another juror regarding a potential conflict and did not discuss the note with the attorneys.

"The constitution requires an ironclad wall between judge and jury," wrote Judge Christine Quinn-Brintnall.

DeGroff was ordered to be retried by a different judge.

—Source: The Columbian (Vancouver, Washington)

Loose, baggy jeans are credited with catching a would-be robber in Henderson, North Carolina. It seems that when 24-year-old Noah Donell Brown tried to jump over the counter of a Subway shop during an armed robbery attempt, his loose trousers tripped him up and he came crashing down in front of employees.

Brown then fled to a nearby residential neighborhood, with police in chase, only to get held up again. As he tried to climb a picket fence, Brown's pants got caught. Police, who found him dangling upside down, his pants at his ankles, had to cut him loose.

"He didn't make a good jump," said Hendersonville police Chief Donnie Parks, who spotted Brown on the fence. "The only reason we caught the guy was because his pants fell down," he said, adding: "He was wearing underwear, thank goodness."

A Massachusetts family is suing former friends because their friends' niece was too ugly for marriage.

In the lawsuit, Dr. Vijai Pandey of Belchertown, Massachusetts sued Lallan and Kanti Giri after the arranged marriage suggested by the Giris did not work out. According to the lawsuit, the 37-year-old prospective groom, his mother and sister traveled to New Delhi, India to meet the Giris niece. When they arrived, they were "shocked" to discover the prospective bride was "ugly with dark complexion and protruded bad teeth and couldn't speak English to carry on a conversation."

The Pandeys are seeking $200,000 from the Giris to cover travel expenses and emotional distress and charge them with fraud and conspiracy. "I felt cheated, really, and there was no remorse from the other side, like it was our mistake,'' Pandey said. "I felt taken advantage of."

News reports indicate that when contacted about the lawsuit, Lallan Giri said, "We plead guilty, 120 percent."

Two women have filed separate lawsuits against rum-maker Bacardi for burns sustained in a Miami bar in 2002. Agata Macierzynska and her friend Danielle Alleyne each sustained serious burns after a customer lit a menu and placed it in the stream of the Bacardi 151 alcohol shots being poured by the bartender, sending flaming rum all over the women.

According to their lawsuits, the women claim that Bacardi 151 rum is defective and dangerous. A statement issued by the wine and spirit maker said, "Bacardi 151 carries a very clear label that warns against any flaming of the product."

A South Carolina woman has won a lawsuit and will get to keep a $40,000 engagement ring, despite the fact that she called off the wedding. Seems the man, Brian Callahan of New York, was still legally married at the time he proposed to Dana Clyburn Parker with a 3.41-carat diamond engagement ring.

After learning that her fiancé was still married and that he spent time searching the Internet for other women, Ms. Parker called off the wedding. Callahan sued Parker to get the ring back.

State Supreme Court Justice Rolando T. Acosta ruled that Parker can keep the ring because the agreement to marry was void and his gift of a ring could not form a contract.

The couple first "met" in 2001 on an online dating service that listed Callahan as "divorced."

A Chicago-area lawsuit is cutting apart the medical community and parental rights' groups. An undisclosed father of an eight-year-old boy is suing his ex-wife in an attempt to prevent his son's circumcision. The parents were divorced in 2003 and awarded joint custody, giving them equal input on medical decisions.

The boy's father believes the circumcision is unneeded and describes the operation as mutilation. The mother claims that the operation is medically necessary as the boy has suffered at least four genital infections in the last year.

Doctors for both sides have testified, with one side arguing there is no medical reason to remove the boy's foreskin, and the other side offering expert advice on circumcision as a way to prevent further problems. Tracy Rizzo, the mother's lawyer, says that the father is opposed to procedure because he resents his former wife's remarriage to a Jewish man. "The father has made this more of a political issue and nothing to do with medicine," she said.

An Oregon man has filed an $832 million civil lawsuit against basketball star Michael Jordan and Nike founder Phil Knight, claiming that he has been subjected to harassment, discomfort, unpleasant feelings and permanent injury because he physically resembles the basketball icon. The plaintiff is seeking $52 million from each defendant for "defamation and permanent injury" and $364 million from each in punitive damages for "emotional pain and suffering."

The nearly six-foot tall Allen Ray Heckard filed suit last month in county court claiming to have been mistaken for Michael Jordan (who is six inches taller) nearly every day for the past 15 years. According to Heckard's suit, he cannot attend religious services and public functions, ride public transportation, go to a restaurant, play sports in public parks, attend movies or walk the streets without people thinking he's Jordan. Heckard, who is representing himself, said, "I'm constantly being accused of looking like Michael, and it makes it very uncomfortable for me."

Theresa Tran, the director of communications for the Jordan division of Nike, said, "The only comment I can offer you is that we don't believe the suit to have merit and will move to dismiss it."

The creator of an Internet site is being sued by a city attorney who claims the website posted defamatory statements about him. Claiming to be the "Internet's largest database of alleged cheaters," www.dontdatehimgirl.com is a forum "for women to share their experiences and warn other women about the men who have allegedly cheated on or lied to them!"

The site invites members to "browse our search engine of alleged cheaters, liars and cads" and includes the name and city of the men, with photographs for some postings. There are also feature articles and an e-store.

Attorney Todd J. Hollis, who is profiled on the site as unfaithful, among other things, claims that there are not safeguards in place to ensure the truthfulness of items posted on it. According to his lawsuit filed in Allegheny County (Pennsylvania), Hollis contends that the owner of the website, Tasha Joseph, "conspired with disingenuous people whose only agenda is to attack the character of those individuals who have been identified on the site."

Ms. Joseph, a former columnist for the Miami Herald, counters that any man can post a rebuttal on the site. Her attorney likens the website to the "proverbial coffee shop where people go and chitchat," adding, "You would never think of holding the coffee shop owner liable because other people went in and defamed other people."

Continental Tire North America, Inc. (CTNA) has been held liable in a tire tread separation case despite testimony that showed the suspect tire was removed from a dump and mounted on the vehicle. A Presidio County (Texas) jury ruled that CTNA must pay $16.25 million to the plaintiffs for injuries suffered in the one-vehicle accident. Plaintiffs' attorneys asserted that the right rear tire of the truck "suffered catastrophic tread separation," causing the truck to veer off the road and roll several times, killing the passenger and injuring the driver. The jury concluded the tire had a "manufacturing flaw."

CTNA maintained, through a company statement, that "the evidence established that the subject tire failure was caused by an improperly repaired puncture that had been removed from a scrap tire pile before being mounted on the accident vehicle. There was also evidence of speeding and lack of seat belt restraint. It is CTNA's position that consumers should never purchase scrap tires and consumers should carefully inspect used tires before placing them in service due to their unknown tire history." Evidence and testimony indicated that the plaintiffs were not wearing seat belts and experts confirmed that the vehicle was speeding.

Plaintiff's co-counsel Juan Silva noted that plaintiffs presented evidence it would take about $12 million for the perpetual care of one plaintiff and "[w]hat impressed me about the jury is they didn't go hog wild. And they [the jury] gave him some more for his pain and suffering. What we really wanted to ensure was for medical care. This was not a runaway jury, but a responsible jury."

Defense attorney Jim Darnell said that while the wreck was a "tragic accident, it wasn't caused by Continental Tire." CTNA indicated that it is considering all options with respect to an appeal of the verdict.

Atheist Michael Newdow's latest lawsuit seeking to strike the phrase "In God We Trust" as the national motto and its inscription on U.S. money has been rejected by a federal judge in California.

U.S. District Judge Frank C. Damrell, Jr. tossed out Dr. Newdow's lawsuit, ruling that the phrase does not represent an establishment of religion. Following precedent established by a 1970 court decision, Judge Damrell ruled that the words "In God We Trust" are a national motto that "have nothing whatsoever to do with the establishment of religion."

With respect to religion, the First Amendment says, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof ... ." "In God We Trust" appears on U.S. currency and has been the official U.S. motto since 1956.

Michael Newdow has unsuccessfully tried similar lawsuits to prohibit expressions in the public arena of our nation's religious heritage, including his suit to ban the phrase "under God" from the Pledge of Allegiance in use in public schools, which made it to the U.S. Supreme Court but was thrown out due to lack of standing. A Sacramento federal judge sided last fall with Mr. Newdow in an identical lawsuit filed on behalf of parents with children in three Sacramento-area school districts. That lawsuit is pending before the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

A judge in Long Island, New York recently dismissed a woman's lawsuit against a restaurant after she choked on a piece of mussel shell. Stating that the woman should have had a "reasonable expectation" that a shellfish dish could have shells in it, acting Nassau Supreme Court Justice John Galasso, added that the plaintiff had failed to prove the dish "defective."

According to the plaintiff, Mary Slaymaker, she suffered a punctured throat and an infection after choking on a one-inch piece of shell during her meal of mussels marinara. Ms. Slaymaker sued the restaurant for $750,000.

William Croutier, Jr., attorney for the Blue Moon Restaurant, said, "If you order shellfish, there's a reasonable expectation that there might be something of a shell-like nature in it."

A Pennsylvania middle school student received a three day suspension for sharing "contraband" with a classmate. Reportedly the unnamed student shared a piece of Jolt chewing gum, which contains caffeine. The gum is "a stimulant that has no other redeeming quality," said Superintendent Amy Palermo.

The school policy precludes students from possessing a stimulant on school grounds. The school has soda machines, but they are not turned on during school hours and drinks containing caffeine are not sold in the lunchroom. School officials confirmed that there are no negative consequences for a student who brings a soft drink to school in a packed lunch, noting that the school cannot control what parents put in their children's lunches.

Superintendent Palermo noted that the student got in trouble when she shared the gum with a classmate. "What if the gum had been given to a student with a heart condition?" The Superintendent added, defending her decision. "As a parent, would you want your child to be able to get that type of product?"

The Altoona Curve, a Double-A baseball team in Pennsylvania, is hosting a "Salute to Frivolous Lawsuit Night" on July 2, 2006. The team, which has become widely recognized for these fun, themed nights, including an annual "Awful Night," was inspired to host its salute to frivolous lawsuits after learning of separate lawsuits filed against the Oakland A's and the Los Angeles Angels for sex discrimination related to promotions. In each of those cases, giveaways were given to women only as part of the major league clubs' Mother's Day promotions. Male patrons sued the clubs.

According to the Curve's website, its July salute to all ridiculous lawsuits ever filed will include the following:

• A Pink Tote Bag Giveaway to the first 137 men in attendance ages 18 and over
• The first 137 women 18 and over will receive lukewarm coffee so they will not burn themselves
• The first 137 kids will be given a beach ball with a warning not to ingest it
• Angels merchandise and novelty items given away throughout the game
• Honoring some of history's "Most Frivolous Lawsuits" during the game

There will be a grand prize drawing as well in which one fan will receive a "clue" and their own frivolous lawsuit. Curve President and Managing Partner Chuck Greenberg declined to comment on the promotion out of concern that his comments could give rise to a lawsuit. Mr. Greenberg is a practicing corporate and sports attorney.

"We realize that these giveaways as part of our Salute to Frivolous Lawsuit Night are fairly stupid and serve no real purpose," said Curve General Manager Todd Parnell. "But if our fans don't like them, then they can sue us!"

California's statewide exit exam must pass its own test in court before it can be administered again to high school seniors trying to make the grade to graduate. Recently, an Alameda Superior Court judge granted a preliminary injunction allowing students who passed their courses to graduate with their classmates, even if they failed the state's exit exam.

The lawsuit, filed by 10 students and their parents, claimed that the exam discriminates against poor students and those who are learning English. Judge Robert Freedman agreed, writing, "There is evidence on record that shows that students in economically challenged communities have not had an equal opportunity to learn the materials tested on the [California High School Exit Examination]." Supporters of the exam argued that a favorable legal challenge would lower standards and coddle those who cannot meet them.

State education officials have indicated that the state will appeal the decision which affects 47,000 students, representing about 11 percent of California's high school seniors.

A California judge has approved a class action settlement against Netflix for failing to live up to its promise to send another DVD to its customers every time one is returned. The settlement requires Netflix to offer a free month of service to its 5.5 million current and former subscribers. Under the final order, Netflix will pay $1.3 million to two San Francisco-based plaintiffs' lawyers and another $60,000 to a handful of other plaintiffs' lawyers.

The original settlement offer called for plaintiff's lawyers to receive $2.5 million and subscribers to receive a free one-month service upgrade. Judge Mellon rejected that settlement, with the Federal Trade Commission labeling the offer "dangerously close to a promotional gimmick." Nearly 420,000 people accepted the original settlement. Under Judge Mellon's current order, plaintiffs' attorneys can apply for an additional $1.1 million in fees if the revised settlement entices substantially more people to sign up for the free DVDs.

The lawsuit began several years ago when Netflix subscriber Frank Chevez alleged that the company was not living up to its promise to provide unlimited DVDs through the mail for a flat monthly fee. The company admitted to "throttling" its customers – delaying shipments to its most frequent users who were its less-profitable customers.

Reports indicate that some Netflix subscribers have opted out of the settlement for fear that they will foot the big legal bills via higher fees.

Home security company Alarm One, Inc. has been ordered to pay $1.7 million to a former employee who was spanked in front of her colleagues in what the company called a "camaraderie-building" exercise. A California jury returned a verdict in favor of 53-year-old Janet Orlando finding that she suffered from sexual harassment and sexual battery when she was paddled on her backside on three occasions during her employment.

Ms. Orlando sued her employer for lost wages after she quit her job because she was humiliated when spanked by supervisors. According to court testimony, the spankings occurred during sales staff meetings attended by different teams of salespeople who competed against each other. The losers were spanked with a rival company's yard sign.

Ms. Orlando, a former salesperson for the company, alleged discrimination, assault, battery and infliction of emotional distress. "It was very humiliating," Orlando said. In one of her spankings, Orlando alleges that she suffered a 1-inch cut below her buttocks.

In closing arguments defense attorney Katherine Hart called the spanking sessions silly and juvenile but no sexual harassment as both male and female staffers were subjected to spankings. "It was out in the open," Hart said. "It wasn't furtive. ... We don't have evidence of sexual propositions. We don't have overtly sexual behavior."

In closing arguments, lead defense attorney, K. Poncho Baker, spent time talking about a "strikingly similar" lawsuit that Ms. Orlando filed against another previous employer, a car dealership. According to Ms. Orlando, that case, which centered on a femal employee who was accused of sexually harassing Ms. Orlando, ended with a settlement. "Let's admit why we're here," Baker said. "For money. ... She's going to hop aboard the Alarm One gravy train."

A class action lawsuit has been filed in California charging sunscreen makers with fraudulently exaggerating the effectiveness of their products. According to legal documents, the suit, which names nine defendants, including Schering-Plough, Hawaiian Tropic, Neutrogena, Bull Frog and Banana Boat, lulled consumers into believing sunscreens would protect them equally from cancer-causing UVA and UVB rays. Lawyers in the case have called sunscreen the "snake oil of the 21st Century."

The lawsuit further alleges that the companies in the $455 million U.S. sunscreen industry give consumers a false sense of security by labeling their products as "waterproof" or "sunblock," and claiming "all-day protection" against both rays. "Members of the public believe they can spend more time in the sun without risk," the suit states. "However, in reality, although protected from skin burn (the skin's natural warning system), they are not being protected from harmful sun rays that can cause and have caused a variety of dangerous skin conditions, such as skin cancer."

The plaintiffs are seeking refunds for consumers and a mandate that the manufacturers surrender any profits derived from the sale of their sunscreens. Further, the plaintiffs are demanding that the manufacturers be required to remove allegedly false labels and seek unspecified damages, with a portion of the money to go to consumer education programs.

Coppertone maker Schering-Plough issued a statement, saying that "labeling and advertising for all Schering-Plough products are developed in compliance with applicable laws and FDA regulations." One dermatologist, Dr. Omeed Memar, called the lawsuit "ridiculous," as people should use their common sense rather than relying on a label. Dr. Richard G. Glogau, a clinical professor at the University of California-San Francisco, believes filing a lawsuit against sunscreen manufacturers for failing to prevent all sunburns is "akin to someone suing a seat belt manufacturer because seat belts don't prevent 100 percent of the deaths."

In the wake of the lawsuit, the American Academy of Dermatology issued a reminder not to stay in the sun long even when using sunscreen.

A former assistant manager of a Hooters restaurant located in Auburn, Alabama is suing for wrongful dismissal, claiming the firing amounted to illegal sexual harassment and retaliation. On its Internet site, Atlanta-based Hooters of America Inc. said it prohibits sexual harassment and has a strict policy "forbidding unwelcome physical or verbal behavior."

Jarman Gray, 31, filed suit under the federal civil rights laws, seeking back pay and other unspecified punitive damages from Montgomery-based Alabama Wings, which operates the restaurant. Gray contends that he was fired after calling the corporate office to complain about comments made by a corporate trainer, a woman identified only as Kat, who told waitresses at the restaurant that they should not be reluctant to make a little extra money by having sex with the patrons "if the money is right."

After waitresses complained to Gray about the trainer's comments, Gray called the corporate office and was told to discuss the problem with the franchise owner, Darrell Spikes. Gray's lawsuit states that after he told Spikes of the comment, his telephone call and his concern about the potential for sexual harassment problems, Spikes responded: "I'm top dog, you don't call corporate. You no longer have a job here."

An Ohio State University graduate student whose bicycle was mistaken for a pipe bomb will be riding his new wheels soon, compliments of OSU.

According to news reports, OSU authorities shut down four buildings on campus, blocked off streets and summoned a bomb squad from Columbus after an OSU police officer on early morning patrol spotted the bike with a sticker affixed to it that read: "This Bike is a Pipe Bomb." The bomb experts dismantled the bike and found no explosives inside.

The owner of the bike, 28-year-old Patrick Hanlin, an education counseling student and resident assistant, was charged with inducing panic. The charges were later dropped when it was learned that the sticker simply displayed the name of a punk rock band – This Bike is a Pipe Bomb from Pensacola, Florida.

Hanlin's request for compensation to reimburse his bike has been granted by the University. Nicolette Dioguardi, associate director of legal affairs for OSU, said her office will "try to do what is fair" and consider the price of the original bike versus a comparable used replacement.

Three homeless men have filed a lawsuit in San Diego Superior Court against the filmmakers, financial backers and distributors of "Bumfights" videos, produced and sold in recent years.

The films, with such titles as "The Bum Hunter" and "Bag Lady Beatings," were removed from shelves at major retailers after a lobbying effort by the National Coalition for the Homeless. "These videos totally demonize and degrade one of the most vulnerable groups," said Michael Stoops, acting executive director of the organization.

According to San Diego County Deputy District Attorney Curtis Ross, the four filmmakers were prosecuted for illegal fight promoting by using petty cash, booze and cigarettes to entice homeless folks to perform. In some films, the homeless actors brawl or do dangerous stunts like crash their heads against walls or set their hair on fire. "They got them liquored up and had them fight, jump off buildings, ram their heads into walls . . . pull out their teeth with pliers," said Ross.

Now three of the stars of the videos, Rufus Hannah, Donald Brennan and Peter LaForte, have filed a lawsuit alleging assault and battery, civil rights violations, breach of contract and other offenses. "The most I ever got out of the guys was a 10 dollar bill," said Hannah who now has impaired vision and balance as a result of his stunts.

Michael Slyman, one of the filmmakers, denies they abused the homeless actors. "They agreed to it," he said. "It's staged events."

A California man recently sued the City of Lodi, California for damages incurred to his vehicle when a city-owned dump truck backed into his car. The suit was dismissed because the car's owner, Curtis Gokey, was the city employee who was driving the truck at the time of the accident.

Mr. Gokey, a 51-year-old public works employee, admitted he was at fault but still sued the city in an attempt to recover $3,600 for the cost of repairs. "Some things are just ridiculous," stated Steve Schwabauer, an attorney for Lodi authorities, in denying the claim. "This is just one of those things where you go, no, the citizens of Lodi are not going to pay for his error," he added.

Mr. Gokey's wife then filed a new claim under her name. City Attorney Steve Schwabauer reportedly predicts that this one also lacks merit because Rhonda Gokey can't sue her own husband. "You can sue your spouse for divorce, but you can't sue your spouse for negligence," Schwabauer said. "They're a married couple under California law. They're one entity. It's damage to community property."

Just five days after St. Patrick's Day, Irish movie star Colin Farrell and Playboy Playmate Nicole Narain are due back in court in Los Angeles. Last fall, the 29-year-old actor sued his former 31-year-old girlfriend and two others seeking to stop them from profiting from the rumored plans to sell a 14-minute steamy homemade sex video of Farrell and Narian. A temporary restraining order, blocking the public release of the video, has been in place.

A hearing date of March 22 nd was set by LA Superior Court Judge Elihu Berle. Reports indicate that lawyers for Narian will ask the judge to either force Farrell to appear and answer questions under oath or throw out the case, charging that he avoided legal depositions in the case for the last three months. "We've heard everything from [drug] rehabilitation to travel outside the country," Narian's attorney stated.

The trial date is set for July 17 th but the parties have agreed to enter mediation beforehand.

In the land of excess, a Las Vegas lawyer has been reprimanded for his flashy commercial advertisements, one of which shows him spinning like a human tornado, generating cash for his clients. Personal injury lawyer Glen Lerner, a.k.a. "the Heavy Hitter", was notified by the Nevada State Bar Association that he had to change his pseudonym from "the Heavy Hitter" to "a Heavy Hitter."

Mr. Lerner claims that the Nevada Bar Association informed him of the needed change so as not to violate the attorney rules on advertising that preclude false and misleading statements. State Bar officials have refused to comment, citing Nevada Supreme Court Rules that require confidentiality of attorney discipline proceedings.

Claiming that the advertisements are not false and misleading, Lerner, through his attorney, states that the speech is protected. "As long as my ads are not false or misleading, I can say what I want to say," Lerner said. "I'm selling a product. Me, I'm like the Ty-D-Bol man."

News reports indicate that Mr. Lerner plans to sue the State Bar of Nevada over what he deems to be unlawful restrictions on his First Amendment rights to advertise as he sees fit.

A Denver, Colorado woman has been sued by her elderly neighbors for bathing. According to news reports, Marvin and Goldie Smith, 83 and 78 respectively, have sued their neighbor, Shannon Peterson, alleging that her 5 a.m. baths cause the water pipes to shake so violently that the elderly couple cannot sleep. A letter from the Smith's son, a partner in the Holland and Hart law firm, threatened Ms. Peterson that her "intransigence ... and tortuous conduct have resulted in incredible sleep deprivation for Mr. and Mrs. Smith. Your obstinacy has ruled the day. That will now cease." The letter ordered her to stop running water in her unit before 8 a.m.

Ms. Peterson counters that she has to bathe early before leaving for work as a special education teacher. "I've done everything I can think of to work this out," she said. "I've had maintenance men remove all my tile and insulate the pipes. I've had sound engineers measure my unit and others in the building. Nothing's abnormal. Even the homeowners' board investigated and told the Smiths they should install sound barriers in their unit."

A lawsuit was filed charging Ms. Peterson with "reckless and negligent use of her bathtub" and a jury trial was requested. A review hearing is scheduled for March 22^nd.

Ms. Peterson's attorney is quoted as saying "This is the most frivolous lawsuit I've seen in 30 years of practicing law."

An Escambia County, Florida, middle school P.E. teacher has turned himself in to local law enforcement officials on bribery charges. His alleged crime is charging students $1 a day to skip gym class.

Twenty-eight-year-old Terrence Braxton is accused of accepting $230 from a half-dozen students over the last several months. A sheriff's spokesman said he actually may have collected thousands of dollars from the 250 sixth-to-eighth grade students at Ward Middle School. Principal Nancy Grindl-Perry learned of the scheme from a parent.

"There's been some strange things happening, but this is one of the most bizarre things I've ever heard," said Ronnie Arnold, spokesman for the Escambia County School District. School officials said another teacher, who is no longer with the district, may have also taken bribes.

Braxton was suspended by the District but later is reported to have resigned his teaching position. District officials have reported the allegations to the Florida Department of Education Professional Practices Commission, which could revoke Braxton's teaching certificate if he's found guilty of the charges.

The parents of an eighth grade student in Nevada were threatening a lawsuit after judges for a county spelling bee ruled that their daughter had incorrectly spelled a word during the contest. According to reports, Sara Beckman was disqualified from the county spelling bee despite correctly spelling “discernible.” It seems that the judges’ answer sheet had the word misspelled.

After the bee was over, Sara’s parents protested the ruling, stating that they did not want to interrupt the competition. The rules mandate that the protest be filed immediately. Sara finished the contest in third place.

Sara’s parents threatened to sue the local sponsors and seek an injunction to stop the state spelling bee next month in Las Vegas. After meetings and telephone calls, the parties have agreed to a one-time settlement with the first, second and third place winners from that county moving on to the state spelling bee.

Three Massachusetts women have filed a lawsuit against Wal-Mart because the retailer does not carry the morning-after pill, also known as Plan B, at its stores in the state. The controversial pill is an emergency contraceptive method of preventing pregnancy after unprotected sexual intercourse.

The plaintiffs, backed by pro-choice groups, accuse Wal-Mart of violating a state regulation that requires pharmacies to provide all "commonly prescribed medicines." A Wal-Mart attorney reportedly stated in a letter to plaintiffs that the store chain does not regard the drug as "commonly prescribed." A spokesman for the company added that it "chooses not to carry many products for business reasons."

The company says it carries the pill only in Illinois, where it is required under state law. In other states, Wal-Mart claims demand is too low.

A Milton High School (Massachusetts) senior has filed a civil rights complaint with the U.S. Department of Education charging that his school discriminates against boys by making it easier for girls to succeed academically.

Doug Anglin, whose father is acting as his lawyer in the matter, claims that "[t]he system is designed to the disadvantage of males. From the elementary level, they establish a philosophy that if you sit down, follow orders, and listen to what they say, you'll do well and get good grades. Men naturally rebel against this." Anglin's complaint charges that teachers' attitudes toward girls versus boys is part of what accounts for the fact that girls outnumber boys almost 2 to 1 on the Milton High honor roll and also helps to explain why almost 60 percent of the students in Advanced Placement classes are female.

To remedy the discrimination, Anglin suggests that teachers look past the boys' poor work habits and find other ways to encourage them academically, offering that the school could give credit for playing sports, allow students to take classes on a pass/fail basis, and do away with the school's community service requirement.

School officials deny that girls get better treatment. School Superintendent Magdalene Giffune said she would not consider dropping the community service requirement because it is "an important part of teaching students to be responsible citizens."

According to news reports, an Education Department spokesman said that the matter is being evaluated to determine whether it has merit.

Two Missouri men recently pled guilty to charges of minor harassment in connection with prank phone calls.

The charges resulted from a 3 a.m. prank call left on an answering machine. When the victim traced the call through the local police department, 23 year-old defendant Ryan Fleming's number came up. Fleming's co-defendant, 24 year-old Gabriel Wichman, said he gave Fleming the phone number but that they were just goofing around.

It seems, however, that the joke was on them. According to press accounts, the two men were drunk when they decided to prank call a female friend and leave an obscene and threatening message on her machine. What the men did not realize, however, was that the woman lived at home with her parents and that her father is St. Francois County Associate Circuit Judge Thomas Ray.

Iron County Associate Circuit Judge Kelly Parker handed down the sentence for "drunk-dialing", which included an apology letter to Judge Ray, community service and the requirement that each man complete a research paper titled "How Practical Jokes Have Serious Consequences."

In what is likely the first of its kind, an Ohio man is suing two chat room visitors for what he claims were humiliating comments that caused him emotional distress, as well as American Online ("AOL") for allegedly failing to do anything about it.

George Gillespie of Ohio claims in his lawsuit that the chat room participants "acted in an outrageous manner, which they knew or should have known would cause serious emotional distress to the plaintiff. The defendants' conduct was so extreme and contemptible as to go beyond all possible bounds of decency."

The individual defendants deny any wrongdoing, stating that they are "so flabbergasted with this because this has been blown out of proportion. There were never any threats. We just made fun of the guy."

The questions raised in the case include whether courts have jurisdiction over what people say in Internet chat rooms and how anybody proves actual harm from chatter posted on the Internet. The plaintiff's lawyer contends that the case goes beyond the jurisdictional issue, claiming that one of the defendants came to Gillespie's hometown and filed a change-of-address form to disrupt his mail service. The defendant denies the claim.

AOL's legal counsel did not comment on the case, but did state that AOL has a strict code of conduct that it expects members to follow, and it takes seriously breeches of those rules reported by its members and that there also are mechanisms in place to block out an offending member -- such as blocking or ignoring that person.

A group of Pennsylvania residents opposed to funding a new sewer system in their township may have just seen their chance for a victory flushed down the toilet by a county judge.

Judge Samuel Kline ruled against the South Annville residents who claimed that the township had not proceeded properly in its pursuit of a sewer system. According to the plaintiffs' attorney, his clients were not opposed to the project per se, but rather they felt it was not appropriate that they were being forced to pay for and use a new sewer system. All the plaintiffs currently use individual septic tanks and believe it would be unfair to have to fund a septic system that would benefit people who haven't taken care of their septic systems, as well as new neighborhoods being developed in the township. "People who did maintain their systems must pay for those who didn't and the new houses," the plaintiffs' attorney said. "Is that fair?"

The township is now pursuing possible sanctions against the citizens and their lawyers to recoup court costs and to penalize the parties responsible for what the defendants claim is a "frivolous lawsuit" clogging up the courts.

A hearing is scheduled for later this month to address the possible sanctions. An earlier request for a temporary injunction that was denied is currently pending appeal in Commonwealth Court. The plaintiffs' attorney also noted that last week's decision will almost undoubtedly be appealed.

A Montgomery County, Maryland, Circuit Court Judge recently ruled that exposing your buttocks in public does not constitute indecent exposure.

According to court filings, 44-year-old Raymond Hugh McNealy exposed his buttocks to his neighbor, Nanette Vonfeldt, and her 8-year-old daughter following an argument between the two adults that was part of a long-standing feud. Ms. Vonfeldt pressed charges against Mr. McNealy for indecent exposure, a crime punishable in Maryland by as much as three years in prison and a $1,000 fine. A lower district court judge ruled in favor of Ms. Vonfeldt.

Despite the fact that he referred to such behavior as "disgusting" and "demeaning," Judge John W. Debelius III reversed the lower court decision, stating that, "If exposure of half of the buttock constituted indecent exposure, any woman wearing a thong at the beach at Ocean City would be guilty." However, Judge Debelius suggested that the outcome could have been different if Mr. McNealy had been on trial for "being a jerk."

Senior Assistant State's Attorney Dan Barnett, who supervises the prosecutors who handle such cases, said that the indecent exposure law in Maryland is ambiguous.

A Massachusetts beer distributor is engaged in a legal battle with the Liquor Control Division of Connecticut's Department of Consumer Protection over his company's holiday spirits.

When Dan Shelton, owner of Shelton Brothers, applied to sell his Seriously Bad Elf beer, a seasonal bitter winter ale, his application was denied because Connecticut's state law forbids using images that might appeal to children to advertise alcohol. The label for Seriously Bad Elf beer shows a mean-looking elf using a slingshot to fire Christmas ornaments at Santa's sleigh as it passes overhead.

The Connecticut law, which specifically cites Santa Claus, was passed out of lawmakers' fear that such images might entice children to drink alcohol during the holiday season. Federal regulations, which generally address marketing and labels, do not address marketing to children and permit states to enact more restrictive marketing rules.

In his appeal of the Commission's ruling, Mr. Shelton notes that he has previously distributed beer in Connecticut under the labels of Bad Elf, Very Bad Elf and even Santa's Butt. Mr. Shelton claims that Connecticut's alcohol regulations are an unconstitutional violation of his free speech rights and violate the establishment clause of the Constitution, which prohibits government endorsement or disapproval of religion. The appeal also cites a New York case involving Bad Frog beer in which the court ruled that the laws against selling beer to minors were sufficient enough protection and a ban was unwarranted.

A Pennsylvania woman has filed suit against Pizza Hut and a franchise owner for injuries sustained in 2003 after she burned her chin biting into a jalapeño popper - half a small hot pepper filled with cream cheese and breaded, then fried. The plaintiff, Sorana Georgescu-Hassanin, is seeking damages after hot oil and cheese squirted from the deep-fried popper.

In court papers the plaintiff says she "observed that the Poppers were warm to the touch" but alleges that Pizza Hut neglected to drain the oil from them. The lawsuit claims Pizza Hut failed to "adequately warn her of any dangers" that might be caused by the appetizer.

The trauma, the suit says, resulted "in a wage loss and a loss of impairment of her future earning capacity" and it "traumatically induced/reactivated chronic herpes simplex." Her husband is suing for loss of companionship. Their combined claim seeks no less than $75,000.

Pizza Hut has declined comment, citing its company practice not to comment on pending litigation. The franchise owner's comment was limited to simply stating that the "incident took place before I owned the store."

Even in a non-election year, public opinion still matters in Pensacola, Florida.

Escambia County Administrator George Touart withdrew his request to be reimbursed by the county for legal fees incurred while defending himself against a grand jury investigation and a Florida Ethics Commission complaint. According to legal filings, Mr. Touart and the local sheriff were accused of using their positions to pressure Arety Sievers, owner of Arety's Angels Gentleman's Club, to forgive almost $6,000 worth of charges made by Mr. Touart's son at the nightclub.

Both officials were cleared of any wrongdoing and the sheriff's legal fees were reimbursed by an insurance company. Because the county is self-insured, the reimbursement decision was left up to the County Commission, which voted to pay the Administrator's $16,115 legal bill based on Florida case law precedent.

The Escambia County Clerk of Court, which has jurisdiction over all payment requests, failed to pay the bill and support for his actions came in phone calls from the residents. Following reports of the barrage of e-mails and telephone calls to other Commissioners from angry citizens, Mr. Touart withdrew his request.

The matter comes up for a vote at the Commission's next meeting. Commission Chairman Mike Whitehead said he may still pursue payment because "[c]onceding the issue exposes all elected and appointed officials to unlimited liability for frivolous lawsuits with no legal representation."

One resident disagreed, questioning how it can be legal to pay the bills when it was Mr. Touart's personal business.

The New Hampshire Board of Medicine is considering sanctions against a physician for telling the truth. Dr. Terry Bennett's medical license is at risk, not because he failed to uphold the standard of care or committed some egregious act of medical malpractice, but rather because he was being honest with one of his patients.

According to the complaint filed with the Board, the obese female patient was offended when Dr. Bennett spoke to her about her weight. The complaint alleges Bennett's comments "stunned, shocked, embarrassed, (and) humiliated" the woman. The Board, which recently held hearings on the case, has charged him with misconduct and disrespectful and unprofessional behavior. The Board demanded that Dr. Bennett admit he made a mistake. Dr. Bennett has refused, replying that "Part of my job is to tell you the truth. You come in here, you pay $75 to sit on the couch. I'm not going to sit here and talk about the weather with you. If you're noticeably obese, I know that you are going to have future health problems."

Dr. Bennett has countered with a motion to dismiss the complaint, charging that the Board is barred on legal and constitutional grounds from acting on his case. Bennett's attorney argues that the state is trying to censor what a doctor says to a patient in his office, adding, "This is a classic First Amendment case."

The board is expected to decide whether to accept or reject the motion to dismiss the complaints before its next meeting in early December. A disciplinary hearing is scheduled for February 1, 2006.

A shopper who claims he got stuck in a restroom in a Home Deport store is suing the retailer, but a similar claim he made in 2004 turned out to be false.

Bob Dougherty of Boulder, CO, says that after availing himself of the restroom in a Home Depot store in Louisville, KY, he realized he was inextricably stuck to the toilet seat. Dougherty says that he called for help but was ignored by store employees who may have thought his calls were a hoax.

According to Dougherty’s lawsuit, store managers finally responded and called an ambulance after about 15 minutes. And although paramedics unbolted the toilet seat, Dougherty was “frightened and humiliated” as they wheeled him out of the store.

But according to the Rocky Mountain News, Dougherty had reported a similar incident at the visitor’s center in the town of Nederland, CO. In that case, Dougherty told local officials that his rear had been glued to a toilet seat. However, upon inspecting the allegedly glue-coated commode, the officials found no evidence of glue or any other adhesive on the toilet seat. No police report was filed and no medical personnel were called to the scene.

The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court has prevented a man from playing both sides in a drunk driving case.

John Otis III and a friend were both hospitalized when Todd Cusick, who was drunk at the time, hit them with his car while they were crossing the street. Cusick received jail time, but Otis was left with permanent leg and neurological injuries. As a result, Otis successfully sued Cusick and was awarded $6.5 million in damages. But Cusick’s insurance policy covered only $50,000 of those damages, and he was unable to pay the rest.

In response, Otis cooked up a new approach, agreeing to free Cusick from his liability in the case if Cusick allowed Otis to sue Cusick’s attorneys and insurance company in order collect all of the winnings from the first lawsuit. The new approach requires Otis to argue that Cusick’s lawyers and insurer should have won the first lawsuit. So, Otis and his lawyer had to reverse their position on every critical legal ruling and disputed fact, even rebutting arguments they, themselves, made in the first trial.

As one attorney involved in the case explained, Otis attempted “to come into one court, tell one jury and judge one story and then in an attempt to collect from the defense lawyers’ insurance company, to tell another story to another jury.”

An Arizona law firm is suing Verizon for providing better placement of Yellow Pages advertising to a competing firm.

David Michael Cantor, an attorney with the Tempe law firm Cantor and Simon, filed suit for breach of contract after his firm paid over $100,000 for a full-color insert in the phone book. Cantor’s firm seeks compensation because Verizon sold a similar “tab” ad to another firm, allegedly with better placement.

Cantor says that Verizon attempted to assuage his anger with offers of various gifts, but the attorney and his law firm have remained resolute in their suit. Cantor has remarked, “They went with the adage of forgiveness rather than permission. That doesn’t work with a law firm.”

The Wisconsin Supreme Court determined in a 4-2 decision that a boy alleging lead paint pigment caused him to become mentally impaired may sue the leading former manufacturers of the pigment. He is suing a number of manufacturers because he cannot prove which one was responsible for his own disability.

The majority in the case invoked the "risk contribution theory" in their decision to incorporate in the lawsuit all manufacturers of white lead carbonate, which was once commonly used in lead paint. The principle permits those who cannot prove injuries from a particular source to still collect damages if they can show that the source's product is harmful, caused their injuries and that the defendant negligently produced it.

Bonnie Campbell, a spokeswoman for some of the defendant companies, has noted that the chemical manufacturers stopped producing the pigment long before they were legally obligated to do so by the state of Wisconsin.

Dissenting Justice David Prosser points out that it is unfair to force companies to prove they did not injure the boy, rather than requiring him to evidence that a specific manufacturer harmed him: "It will be nearly impossible for paint companies to defend themselves or, frankly, for plaintiffs to lose."

A baseball fan who was hit by a foul ball can sue the ballpark owner, according to a recent decision by the New Jersey Supreme Court.

In 1999, Louis Maisonave was hit by a foul ball while buying a beer from a vending cart at Newark’s Bears and Eagles Stadium. The new stadium’s permanent concessions stands were still under construction, but vending carts offered food and drinks on the mezzanine, along the first- and third-base lines. The carts had a full view of the field, and fans could even watch the game as they bought their concessions since the vendors faced away from the action.

According to the lawsuit, Maisonave was hit by the foul ball while he was at the vending cart, reaching for his money and chatting with other fans. He sued the ballpark’s owner claiming the stadium should have done more to protect fans from errant balls.

In a 5-2 decision, the New Jersey Supreme Court agreed and altered the long-standing “baseball rule” that shields stadiums and their owners from liability for game-related accidental injuries. Under the rule, fans “assume the risk” of being hit by foul balls and thrown bats as part of being close to the action. But the majority of the New Jersey Supreme Court ruled that fans only “assume the risk” of accidental injury while they are in the “stands.” Thus, Maisonave could sue since he was hit while he wasn’t in his seat.

The case now goes to trial. But, in the meantime, ballparks may start installing more netting to prevent foul balls from ever reaching the fans.

A Chicago man claims he has trademarked the word “stealth,” and has been making a business of threatening to sue companies that use the word without his permission.

Leo Stoller owns Rentamark.com, a company through which he offers his services as an expert witness in trademark cases and advice for sending cease-and-desist letters to alleged trademark violators. The company also sells licenses to use the words — including “stealth,” “bootlegger,” hoax” and “chutzpah” — that Stoller claims he owns or controls.

Indeed, according to The New York Times, “[a] search of United States Patent and Trademark Office records found that Mr. Stoller and companies that share a Chicago post office box with him … hold at least two dozen registered trademarks for ‘stealth,’ covering such diverse products and services as crossbows, pool cues and insurance consultations.” Stoller told the Times he holds even more trademarks on “stealth” and “insisted that his close association with the word gave him special rights.”

“We’re entitled to own it with all goods and services,” Stoller said. “We were there first.” And Stoller is not just claiming ownership of “stealth,” he is actually telling companies not to use the word and threatening to sue them if they do. Some companies are even buying Stoller’s licenses in order to avoid more costly litigation. Northrop Grumman, the main contractor for the B2 stealth bomber, apparently sent a check to Stoller and agreed not to try to trademark “stealth bomber” for spin-off products like model airplanes and video games so long as Stoller would not prosecute the use of “stealth” for the company’s aircraft or defense equipment.

Despite Stoller’s moneymaking, Stanford Law Professor Mark A. Lemley explained, “Trademark law doesn’t give you exclusive right in words, only the right to prevent consumer confusion.”

Victims of a drunk driver can sue the gas station that sold him the fuel to drive, according to a recent Tennessee Supreme Court decision.

In July 2000, Brian Lee Tarver bought $3 worth of gas at an Exxon station in Knoxville, Tennessee, before causing a head-on crash that seriously injured two men. Tarver was drunk at the time and pleaded guilty to criminal charges including driving under the influence. Now the Tennessee Supreme Court has ruled that the victims of the drunk driving accident can proceed with their lawsuit against the gas station that allowed Tarver to put fuel in his tank

Specifically, the lawyers for the two victims claimed that Tarver would have run out of gas before causing the crash if the Exxon station had turned him away. The lawyers also argued that the gas station should be responsible for Tarver’s drunk driving accident because the station’s employees knew Tarver was drunk and should have done something to prevent him from driving. The Tennessee Supreme Court ruled the lawsuit could go forward, ruling that while the station’s employees didn’t have to stop Tarver from getting behind the wheel, they should have refused to sell him gas.

A supermodel is suing HSBC bank for failing to prevent her intoxicated stepfather from withdrawing large amounts of money from her accounts.

Maggie Rizer authorized her stepfather, John Breen, to have Power of Attorney over her finances by signing a legal document that warned her Breen would possess “broad powers to handle [her] property … which may include powers to dispose of personal property … without advance notice to you or approval by you.” But based on the lawsuit Rizer has now filed to recover millions of dollars she lost, it appears she should have paid more attention to those warnings.

Specifically, Rizer alleges her stepfather withdrew approximately $7 million from her accounts for his own personal use, sometimes while he was intoxicated. Rizer claims the bank should have prevented her stepfather’s banking withdrawals, especially when he was intoxicated. Rizer is seeking $24 million in damages.

HSBC has responded by explaining it is “unlawful for a bank to refuse to honor … Power of Attorney,” whether the person possessing that authority is intoxicated or not. Furthermore, the bank notes there is no law requiring banks to prohibit customers from banking while intoxicated and that Rizer never complained of any errors after receiving multiple monthly statements.

A Colorado woman has successfully sued two teenagers for dropping off a dozen cookies at her house.

More than a year ago, Taylor Ostergaard, then 17, and Lindsey Jo Zellitti, then 18, chose to stay home instead of going to a dance where they feared others would be drinking. After doing chores, Ostergaard asked her father whether the two friends could bake cookies for their neighbors. With cookies to distribute, the girls went from house to house leaving their gifts at any home where the houselights were still on — they did not want to disturb anyone who might be sleeping. The cookies were accompanied by a heart shaped card that read, “Have a great night. Love, The T and L Club,” and were left with a knock on the front door to get the neighbors’ attention.

When the teens knocked on the door of Wanita Renea Young, 49, though, the woman called the sheriff’s department in fear. Young said she saw shadowy figures at her door who didn’t answer when she asked who was there; Taylor explained that the teens “wanted to surprise” the neighbors. Deputies determined that no crime had been committed, but Young was hospitalized the next day for an anxiety attack, which she claimed resulted from the previous night’s scare.

Young then sued the two girls to recover the cost of her medical bills, winning a judgment of $900. Young was awarded no money for pain and suffering. After winning the case, Young said, “I’m not gloating about it. I just hope the girls learned a lesson.”

California’s Attorney General is suing nine fast food and snack food companies because of a state law he claims requires warning labels on French fries and potato chips.

Attorney General Bill Lockyer filed the lawsuit in a Los Angeles Superior Court in late August against the potato-serving companies, including Frito-Lay, Procter & Gamble, KFC, McDonald’s and Wendy’s. He is seeking a court order to force the defendants to warn consumers that their potato products allegedly contain acrylamide, which is on the state’s list of carcinogens.

But, according to Michele Corash, an attorney representing several defendants, “It is bound to misinform people if you have a warning on French fries but not on a potato.” In 2002, scientists in Sweden found acrylamide in starchy foods that were cooked at high temperatures. “No one buys a potato to eat it raw,” Corash went on to explain. “People will think if they make [French fries] on their own they will not have problems.”

Attorney General Lockyer acknowledged he was “not telling people to stop eating potato chips and French fries.” But he pointed out that California’s Proposition 65, which passed in 1986, requires all businesses to provide “clear and reasonable” warnings to the public before exposing them to potentially dangerous substances.

After three years of litigation, a New York appeals court has finally ruled that an eighth-grade teacher who ran an anti-substance abuse program cannot return to his job after being arrested on felony drug charges.

Michael Campbell, a dean and teacher at Staten Island’s Intermediate School 72, was arrested on drug charges in April 2002 after being caught with a bag of marijuana while sitting in a car where there were 10 more aluminum bags of cocaine. Campbell ran the school’s “Safe Cities-Safe Streets” program.

Campbell agreed to a deal under which he pleaded guilty and participated in a drug counseling program in exchange for the possibility that his guilty plea could be vacated and his felony charge dismissed. Campbell successfully completed the program and his hearing officer recommended that he be reinstated, but the school district pursued its own disciplinary charges against the teacher.

Campbell and the New York State United Teachers Union sued to get his job back, and both a hearing officer and a state trial judge agreed that Campbell should be reinstated. An appeals court has now overruled those decisions, explaining that returning Campbell to the school would be both “irrational” and “defy common sense.”

Kate O’Brien Ahlers, spokeswoman for the city Law Department, remarked that Campbell’s case was “another example of the need for reform in our disciplinary system — we shouldn’t have to spend years on litigation to remove an individual convicted of serious drug charges.” Lawyers for Campbell and the teachers’ union said they were reviewing the decision and did not comment on whether they would appeal.

The families of seven illegal immigrants who died after being abandoned in a sealed truck trailer while being smuggled into the United States are suing the trailer manufacturer in federal court. Specifically, the relatives claim that the manufacturer is liable for the deaths because there “were no warnings, instructions, decals or other means of warning of the dangers of transporting individuals inside the trailer.”

The illegal immigrants died after the truck driver who was smuggling them into the United States left the nearly airtight container at a truck stop in Texas. The driver is facing criminal charges and is also named as a defendant in the civil lawsuits brought by the victims’ relatives.

The trailer was manufactured by Great Dane Trailers. The relatives blame the trailer manufacturer for failing to include “warnings, safety precautions or human escape mechanisms” in their trailers, and have asked the court for thousands of dollars in damages.

Professor Charles Rhodes, of the South Texas College of Law, explained that the claims against the trailer’s manufacturer shouldn’t come as a surprise. “Attorneys are looking for deep pockets,” he said. “This is not an unusual practice.”

Disc Jockey Erin Weber successfully claimed she could smell discrimination in the workplace. The country music DJ won more than $10 million in damages from an all-female jury after suing Infinity Broadcasting for disability discrimination.

In 1999, Weber complained about an acetone spill on the carpet of her broadcast booth at the Detroit radio station WYCD-FM. Apparently, a guest on an earlier show spilled the chemical during a pedicure. Weber alleged that the acetone caused her to be sensitive to a perfume worn by another DJ, Linda Lee, triggering breathing problems and damaging her vocal chords. Weber argued that Infinity Broadcasting, which owns WYCD-FM, failed to make adequate accommodations in response to her “disability” and fired her in retaliation for filing a discrimination complaint.

In May, a jury made up entirely of women returned a $10.6 million verdict for Weber, including $7 million in punitive damages against Infinity Broadcasting. Weber’s award also included $514,000 for lost income and benefits, $1,078,000 for future lost earnings and benefits and $2 million for emotional distress.

Daniel Tukel, an attorney who represented Infinity in the case, had argued that the radio station asked the other DJ to quit wearing the perfume and adjusted the two disc jockeys’ schedules so that they would not work together. Weber’s attorney said he expected an appeal.

The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court has prevented a man from taking both sides of a drunk driving case that left him with permanent leg and neurological damage.

John Otis III and his friend Shannon O’Malley were both hospitalized when Todd Cusick, who was drunk at the time, hit them with his car while they attempted to cross Route 18 in Weymouth, Massachusetts. Cusick received jail time for the offense, and was later sued by Otis, who won $6.5 million in damages.

Unfortunately, the limit on Cusick’s insurance policy was only $50,000 and Cusick had no ability to pay the judgment, leaving Otis with no way of collecting the $6.5 million. In response, Otis struck a bargain with Cusick and released him from his liability in exchange for the right to sue the drunk driver’s defense attorneys and insurance company and collect the winnings.

This second lawsuit required Otis to argue that Cusick’s lawyers had failed him, and that Otis, himself, should have lost the first lawsuit if Cusick’s lawyers had performed adequately. According to the Patriot Ledger, “To make his case, Otis’ attorney … had to present the exact opposite arguments that he had made in winning the $6.5 million judgment.”

The convoluted legal maneuver didn’t work, however, when the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court rejected Otis’ about face. As victorious attorney Robert W. Renehan said, commenting on the litigation: Otis attempted “to come into one court, tell one jury and judge one story and then in an attempt to collect from the defense lawyers’ insurance company, to tell another story to another jury.”

A West Virginia man is suing a coal company and general contractor for failing to warn him that the Porta-John he was using could explode if exposed to an open flame.

On July 13, 2003, John Jenkins sat down for a bathroom break in a Porta-John and lit a cigarette. Jenkins alleges in his lawsuit that lighting the cigarette ignited methane leaking from a pipe beneath the Porta-John, though the colorless gas is also known to arise from other sources. The resulting explosion blew Jenkins out of the Porta-John, leaving him with severe burns.

Jenkins is seeking $10 million in damages, claiming that the defendants failed to ensure a safe work environment. The lawsuit also alleges that the defendants are liable because they did not post a sign on the Porta-John warning that smoking was forbidden inside. Beyond the physical harms, Jenkins also seeks to recover damages for psychological harms.

Jenkins chose to smoke in the Porta-John in order to avoid the no-smoking policy in the area where he was working.

A Pennsylvania woman has filed a federal civil rights lawsuit claiming that rough treatment during her arrest for suspected prostitution led to the rupture of her breast implants.

The plaintiff, Susan Mator, was taken into custody on March 7. She asserts that the police officer, Sergeant Joseph Nixon, used excessive force in her arrest, improperly throwing her into his police car and damaging her artificial bosom in the process. Mator is seeking unspecified damages in excess of $75,000 for her alleged injuries and bust rupture. The lawsuit names both Nixon and the City of Arnold, Pennsylvania, where Nixon is a police officer, as defendants.

Mator has had other run-ins with the law and has an arrest record for drugs. But one of her lawyers, Harry J. Smail Jr., commends Mator for her courage in bringing the police brutality lawsuit: “She’s very fearful, and frankly, it’s taken all her nerve to get to this point.”

Sergeant Nixon could not be reached for comment on the lawsuit, and the city’s solicitor said he had received the complaint but had yet to read it.

A California man is suing a brewery because of its depiction of a Hindu god on its beer label. The man claims the label intimidates Hindus worldwide from freely practicing their faith.

Brij Dhir, a licensed attorney in India and a Golden Gate University law student, is targeting the Lost Coast Brewery, based in California’s Humboldt County. The brewery produces Indica India Pale Ale, which has a label that depicts the elephant-headed Hindu god Ganesh holding a beer in one of its four hands and another in its trunk. Dhir claims that the beer label has defamed him and Hindus worldwide, causing them to suffer emotional distress.

The brewery’s general manager responded to Dhir’s complaint by saying the product would be taken off the shelves, but Dhir is resolved to continue the lawsuit to recover for the two years of “emotional distress” the beer label has already allegedly caused.

Dhir is seeking at least $25,000, and claims that $1 billion in damages for Hindus worldwide would be an appropriate remedy for this “hate crime.” Also named as defendants are Safeway, which sells the beer, the state Attorney General’s Office and the state Department of Fair Employment and Housing.

Unfortunately, Dhir seems to have failed to pay attention in his law school’s constitutional law class — the First Amendment protects product labeling.

Last week, a three-year-old golden retriever named Murphy received a summons to appear in a Massachusetts state court to answer for an allegedly expired dog license and for being walked twice without a leash. The summons apparently was intended for the dog’s owner, but it was addressed and delivered to Murphy instead.

According to the dog’s owner, Steven Dean of Newton, Massachusetts, the charges date back to March when he was dog-sitting for a neighbor. Dean told the Boston Globe that he only had one leash so, when he went for a walk with the two dogs, Murphy went along without restraint. This caught the eye of a local animal control officer who, upon investigation, found that Murphy not only lacked a leash but a current license, as well. The same dog catcher again spotted Dean walking an untethered Murphy about three months later.

Dean signed for the summons, later commenting: “He can’t read, so I signed on his behalf, requesting a hearing. I don’t even know if they’ll let him into the courthouse.” But according to the court’s Clerk Magistrate, Henry H. Schultz, if and when a hearing is held “Murphy will be treated like one of God’s creatures with dignity.”

A Texas appeals court has reinstated a lawsuit against several Houston strip clubs based on claims the clubs overcharged patrons for lap dances when the men paid using credit cards instead of cash.

Paul Brian Meekey and Michael Fulmer brought the lawsuit after they were allegedly charged $25 for $20 lap dances because they paid with plastic. "Texas law is pretty clear that you cannot charge someone extra for using a credit card," said Sandra Krider, one of Meekey and Fulmer’s lawyers. "The fact that they are strip clubs shouldn’t mean they get away with it."

But the ruling could affect a lot of other men because "the lawsuit may be made a class-action," according to the Houston Chronicle, with Meekey and Fulmer representing everyone who paid for a lap dance using a credit card. If the class gets certified (or approved) then everyone who allegedly overpaid for a lap dance on a credit card would have to be notified. "They are going to want the [strip] clubs’ credit card companies to give them the names of all the different people who charged dances there," said Albert Van Huff, a lawyer who represents several of the clubs.

Perhaps the court should consider how many men would be willing to pay $5 — or even more — to keep those charges private.

A bed-and-breakfast owner is suing his neighbor for mowing his lawn at the wrong time — during a wedding.

Richard A. Demonbreun was hosting a wedding at his historic home in the Woodland-in-Waverly neighborhood of Nashville, Tennessee, on April 16, when his neighbor, William Cochran Jr., decided to cut his grass. Indeed, Demonbreun claims that Cochran started his lawnmower just when the bride and groom were exchanging vows. Now Demonbreun is suing to make sure Cochran won’t do his gardening during any special events in the future.

“The little bitty weddings that I have on my front lawn bother Mr. Cochran,” Demonbreun said. “He doesn’t like to look at weddings, occasionally, when we have them on the front lawn, and he’s determined to stop them. And so he decided to do so by ruining this most special of all days for this bride and groom and in front of 100 witnesses.”

For his part, Cochran admits that he mowed his lawn during the ceremony but said he didn’t intend to uproot the wedding. “This has been going on for four and a half years, these weddings, and not once has this happened before,” Cochran said.

The court has not yet heard Demonbreun’s case, but, in the meantime, the city cited Demonbreun for violating conditions on his business permit after neighbors complained about noise and parking problems caused by the bed-and-breakfast.

—Source: Nashville City Paper
(Submitted by Cam Edwards of NRANews.com)

[Posted June 9, 2005]

A federal appeals court has ruled that dog breeder organizations cannot sue each other over their disagreements about Jack Russell terriers.

For years, the American Kennel Club (AKC) refused to recognize the Jack Russell as a distinct breed, making it impossible for the small terriers to compete in AKC-sponsored shows. Instead, the Jack Russell standard was regulated by the Jack Russell Terrier Club of America. But recently, a California-based group of Jack Russell breeders convinced the AKC to reverse its position, recognize the energetic dogs as a distinct breed and register them.

According to a lawsuit filed in federal court, the national Jack Russell club tried to retain control over the breed by shutting out anyone who registered with the AKC, even allegedly blacklisting breeders in its national magazine. As a result, some California breeders sued, claiming an unfair boycott. But the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit refused to throw the breeders a bone, ruling that their group and the national groups all share the same goal — promoting Jack Russells — and that the lawsuit could not succeed.

A judge has dismissed a class action lawsuit brought by University of Wisconsin-Madison students against local bars that stopped offering drink specials on Friday and Saturday nights.

As part of an effort to curb excessive student drinking, taverns around the University of Wisconsin-Madison agreed in September 2002 not to discount drinks on Friday and Saturday nights. The bars announced the plan after local officials threatened stricter legislation, including a ban on drink specials altogether. But the compromise didn’t satisfy the students, and they sued alleging the bars were trying to fix drink prices.

The lawsuit claimed the bars violated antitrust laws by colluding to charge higher prices for drinks. The students asked for “tens of millions of dollars” on behalf “anyone who patronized the downtown taverns and paid full price.”

In early May, a Wisconsin state judge ruled against the students and threw out the complaint. Calling the case “frivolous,” the Chancellor of the University of Wisconsin-Madison John Wiley said, “I would have been disappointed if it went any other way.” Although the bars ended their voluntary agreement not to offer drink specials on Friday and Saturday nights after the students filed the lawsuit, the City of Madison has not enacted a ban on drink discounts.

A California mother is suing three breakfast cereal companies claiming they misled consumers by promoting reduced-sugar cereals.

Jennifer Hardee, of San Diego, filed a class-action lawsuit in late March against Kraft Food Inc., Kellogg USA Inc., and General Mills, alleging their low-sugar cereals are no more nutritious than the full-sugar counterparts. “The net effect to children is the same,” said Hal Hewell, one of Hardee’s lawyers. “There really is no net health benefit, but it appears to the parents buying the cereal that there is.” Specifically, the lawsuit claims the cereal makers are liable for misleading packaging and advertising.

A spokeswoman for General Mills said that the company “never made specific health claims” for its reduced-sugar cereals. “Consumers wanted less sugar, so we gave them less sugar,” she said, explaining the cereals are “clearly labeled with nutritional information.”

But proper labeling isn’t enough, according to Hardee’s lawyers. “A lot of people, quite frankly, don’t have the educational ability to make those decisions. They rely on the one-line ad,” said Howard Rubinstein, another lawyer representing Hardee. The lawsuit seeks forfeiture of all the profits from the cereals in addition to an order stopping the companies from promoting the cereals as “low sugar.”

The family of a Florida teenager who fell 80 feet while “garage jumping” is now suing the City of Orlando and a garage owner for not preventing the practice.

Tim Bargfrede survived a six-story fall when he tried to leap from one parking garage to another in downtown Orlando. According to WKMG-TV in Orlando, the incident is an example of “a new trend called ‘garage jumping,’” in which “thrill seekers are vaulting themselves between garages in downtown Orlando.” Bargfrede admitted that he was following his friends in attempting the feat, but “just didn’t make it.”

Nevertheless, Bargfrede’s family filed a lawsuit against both the city and a private garage owner alleging they didn’t do enough protect the teenager from jumping. “There was a very, very short length of fence that was completely ineffective in preventing this from happening,” said the family’s lawyer, Vincent D’Assaro. “[Bargfrede] is not the first, he is not the second person, there have been four or five other individuals before that did this.”

When asked about “garage jumping,” Orlando’s parking garage director Samuel Vennero said, “I don’t think we recognized it as a danger before.” The owner of the private parking lot would not comment on the lawsuit.

A Colorado woman is suing the hospital where she gave birth because nurses allegedly mistakenly gave her the wrong baby to breastfeed.

Lisa Johnson gave birth to a baby girl, Emily, in October at North Suburban Medical Center in Thornton, Colorado. While recovering at the hospital, nurses brought the new mother what was supposed to be her baby to breastfeed, but the child would not latch on. Johnson then took a closer look to see what was wrong. After taking the cap off the baby’s head, Johnson realized the baby had brown hair, unlike Emily’s blond hair.

“I immediately freaked out and screamed, ‘This is not my baby,’” Johnson said. “Then they checked the bracelets and the nurse started to cry and said, ‘Oh my God, I can’t believe we did this, I’m so sorry.”

Johnson and her husband are now suing over the alleged mix-up. Specifically, the lawsuit claims the hospital was negligent and seeks unspecified damages. Johnson also says that she has been unable to work ever since and suffers from post-traumatic stress syndrome.

A dentist who sued the Philadelphia Phillies after being hit by a foul ball cannot recover damages from the baseball team, according to both a Pennsylvania trial court and appeals court.

Neil Pakett was sitting about 80 feet from home plate in Philadelphia's Veterans Stadium on June 25, 2001, when Phillies shortstop Jimmy Rollins hit a foul ball in Pakett's direction. Pakett tried to catch the souvenir with his bare hand, but instead the ball hit him in the head. The dentist then decided it was time to try America's newer pastime -- litigation.

Pakett filed a lawsuit against the Phillies alleging he wouldn't have been hit by the foul ball if the backstop at Veterans Stadium had been wider and angled differently. Specifically, Pakett claimed that the Phillies should pay him more than $50,000 for his eye injuries because the stadium could have provided more protection for spectators.

Last October a Philadelphia Common Pleas judge dismissed Pakett's lawsuit, finding that the team adequately warned fans about the dangers of foul balls. The judge noted that fans were warned about the dangers of attending a baseball game on the back of every ticket, on posted signs, through public announcements and even through a video cartoon played in the middle of the first inning. Pakett appealed the decision, but in late March he lost again.

If Pakett wishes to go for strike three, he would next appeal to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court.

Emert Wyss, the owner of Centerre Title and a lawyer in Alton, Illinois, advised a real estate client that her mortgage company may have illegally charged her a $60 fax fee when she refinanced her home. Wyss then encouraged Carmelita McLaughlin to sue Alliance Mortgage and even got her to sign a retainer agreement, hiring him and four other law firms to represent her in the matter.

But when McLaughlin's lawsuit got to court, it became very complicated for Wyss. Wyss had also represented McLaughlin when she bought her home with a loan from Alliance Mortgage and when she refinanced the loan and was charged the disputed fax fee. In fact, Wyss' real estate title company, Centerre Title collected the $60 fax fee. In the words of the Alliance Mortgage's defense lawyer: "Emert Wyss, wearing his hat of Centerre Title company, collects the fees from Ms. McLaughlin, and now we have six, seven, eight months later, Emert Wyss wearing his hat as Ms. McLaughlin's attorney suggests she file suit over the very fees his title company collected from her."

As a result, Circuit Judge Phillip Kardis added Wyss and Centerre Title as defendants in the case -- meaning that Wyss is being sued because of his own advice.

The father of a high school student is asking a court to overrule the bad grade his daughter received from a teacher at the N.C. School of Science and Mathematics.

Luping Qu filed his lawsuit in December alleging that his daughter, Jing, 17, should not have been denied credit for a course on evolution after missing a homework assignment. The complaint also claims that the punishment came too late since the bad grade was assigned for the fourth quarter of the school year even though the homework assignment had been due in the third quarter.

Qu's lawsuit is the culmination of a months-long battle to change Jing's grade. The complaint describes the steps the Qus took to try to have the mark improved, including appealing to teachers, administrators and state officials over the span of five months.

The state Attorney General's office will defend the lawsuit. "Obviously we have different feelings about this," said Gerald Boarman, the president of the school. "Most people are not going to file lawsuits over a grade."

The owners of a dog that was killed by so-called “stray voltage” are demanding that the utility company pay them $740,000 or face a lawsuit. The DeVito family made the demand after allegedly turning down an undisclosed amount of “comfort money” offered by NStar Electric.

On March 1, Kyle DeVito, 13, was walking the family dog, Cassius, on Western Avenue in Boston when the dog was electrocuted by electricity apparently leaking from an old NStar Electric lamppost site. According to the Boston Globe, “stray voltage” problems in Boston have occurred “where streetlights have been removed but underground electricity has not been turned off or begins leaking.”

The DeVito family initially demanded $1.4 million for the dog’s death — an amount equal to the last annual bonus of NStar’s chief executive — but the company balked at the figure. The latest demand for $740,000 was chosen because it is the same as the annual salary of NStar’s chief executive.

“We didn’t want the family to appear greedy,” the DeVitos’ lawyer said at the press conference announcing the demand. “We tried to come up with an offer that had some poetry to it and that would say in very clear terms to NStar: We don’t want this to keep happening. … It is not designed to make the DeVitos a wealthy family.”

A spokesman for NStar would not discuss any settlement talks, but the DeVitos’ lawyer said that the family has presented a series of offers to the company.

A college student has filed a lawsuit against the University of Nevada-Las Vegas after unsuccessfully appealing a B-minus he received in a history course. Specifically, the student claims his history professor’s fast-paced lecture style prevented him from taking complete notes and that he faced discrimination based on his conservative viewpoint.

Bob Whitney, 52, alleges the sub-par mark he received hurt his grade-point average and made him ineligible for student loans. Whitney also claims that when he attempted to appeal the grade to the graduate coordinator, the coordinator not only refused to change the grade but also humiliated Whitney by yelling at him in front of his wife. Whitney is suing UNLV for at least $10,000 for emotional stress, tuition, books and living expenses.

University officials said the lawsuit has no merit, while the history professor and the former graduate coordinator, who is now the associate dean of the liberal arts college, refused to comment.

The estate of a man who died from complications after surgery is suing a Benihana restaurant in Munsey Park, New York, alleging the man's injuries resulted when he ducked a stir-fried shrimp tossed at him by the chef. And now, a court has ruled that the case should proceed to trial.

In early 2001, Jerry Colaitus and his family were seated at one of Benihana's hibachi dinner tables, watching as one of the Japanese restaurant's chefs sliced, diced, cooked, and playfully tossed their food. According to the lawyer for Colaitus's estate, the chef was asked to stop flipping pieces food after he allegedly hit one of Colaitus's sons with a bit of the meal. Nevertheless, according to the lawyer, the chef just smiled and continued with his routine. When the chef allegedly tossed a piece of shrimp toward Colaitus, the man ducked, allegedly injuring two vertebrae in his neck.

Six months later, Colaitus underwent two successive surgeries. In the months that followed, he developed a high fever and problems with his breathing and memory. He later died five months after the second surgery, allegedly from complications. Respiratory and renal failures, as well as a blood-borne infection, were listed as causing Colaitus's death.

The lawyer for Colaitus's estate claims Benihana's is responsible for wrongful death because Colaitus would not have needed surgery if he had not injured his neck at the Japanese restaurant. The estate is seeking $10 million in damages, including claims for pain and suffering and loss of consortium.

A New York judge ruled in late November that the case may go to trial, concluding that a jury should resolve whether Benihana's could be held liable for the man's death.

An Illinois man is suing his neighbor for stealing his wife. Stephen Cyl, a 44-year-old man who lives in his mother's basement, has filed an "alienation of affection" complaint against Lee Bauman, a recently divorced 61-year-old Chicago firefighter who lives down the street.

Specifically, Cyl claims Bauman seduced his wife and convinced her to leave. According to the lawsuit, Bauman met Cyl's wife at a local bar and the two began an affair. Cyl's ex-wife ended their 15-year marriage in June and, according to Cyl, just days later he saw that she was living with Bauman.

The lawsuit claims Bauman is responsible for Cyl's "great mental suffering and anguish," "devastation" and suffering. "This guy, he ruined my life," Cyl said. "I loved her, man. Best thing that ever happened to me. I thought we were happy. ... I want them to admit what they did to me. I want them to admit she had an affair."

Cyl's ex-wife refused to comment, but Bauman said both of them were stunned by Cyl's lawsuit. Cyl is seeking unspecified damages.

The parents of two boys who died of alcohol poisoning and exposure are suing a Montana public school for $4 million. The two boys, both 11-year-old Native Americans, died last winter when they skipped school to drink.

On February 27, 2004, Justin Benoist and Frank Nicolai II went missing from Ronan Middle School in Ronan, Montana. According to the school district, the boys cut classes that Friday afternoon. The boys were discovered dead the following Monday in a snowy field. Autopsies showed that Benoist died of hypothermia, and Nicolai died of alcohol poisoning. Alcohol toxicity was a factor in both of their deaths.

The parents' lawsuit alleges that the school district failed in its duty "to follow its policy and protect and safeguard children that were entrusted to their care." Specifically, the parents claim that the two boys "were seen leaving school early by officials and/or representatives of the school," and despite such "actual notice that the youths were truant and may be in risk of doing something to endanger their lives, no positive action was taken by the school to search for, look and find these children, or report them to authorities."

The parents also allege that the school's discrimination against Native Americans contributed to the boys' deaths. According to the lawsuit, the school district failed "to properly select, train and implement Native American staff who are sensitive to the disability of alcoholism.

The school district's superintendent could not be reached for comment, but a school official did say that the boys had no history of alcohol use at school.

A woman is suing a railroad company for failing to warn her about the danger of walking alongside busy train tracks. The woman filed the lawsuit in November, nearly a year after allegedly being hit while strolling along heavily traveled railroad tracks in southwestern Pennsylvania.

Patricia Frankhouser claims that a freight train hit her in the shoulder and threw her to the ground near Seventh and Eighth Streets in Jeannette, Pennsylvania, on January 6, 2004, causing her to suffer a broken finger, cuts, scrapes and pain in her hands, arms and shoulders. Ten months later, Frankhouser filed a lawsuit against the railroad company, Norfolk Southern Corp, seeking at least $120,000.

According to her complaint, Frankhouser claims that the railroad company is liable for posting no gates or signs warning pedestrians about “the dangers of walking near train tracks and that the tracks were actively in use.” The lawsuit also alleges the engineer “did not stop the train in a timely manner, and failed to yield the right of way to a pedestrian walking along the tracks in plain view.”

The lawsuit doesn’t state why Frankhouser didn’t hear the approaching train or why she didn’t get out of its way. The case was assigned to Westmoreland County Judge William J. Ober.

—Sources: Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, Pittsburgh Tribune-Review

[Posted February 10, 2005]

Just two weeks after a 17-year-old sued to end summer homework in Wisconsin, the state Attorney General has responded, seeking dismissal of the case and an award of attorney’s fees against the student and his father for filing the "unmeritorious complaint."

As reported here last week, high school junior Peer Larson filed a lawsuit against the Wisconsin superintendent of public instruction, three school administrators and a math teacher on January 10, claiming that assigning homework over the summer created an unfair workload and unnecessary stress for him while he was working as a camp counselor. But, according to the Wisconsin Attorney General, the high school student shouldn’t have run to court, he should have complained at a local school board meeting.

"It is the local school boards which determine the curriculum and course requirements," not the state superintendent, noted Peg Lautenschlager. And, in a response dated January 26, the Attorney General explained that policing homework is not only more properly the job of local school boards, but that the 180-day school year for high school students "sets a minimum, not a maximum" in Wisconsin.

Larson filed his lawsuit after being required to complete three pre-calculus assignments over the summer for an honors math class. Bruce Larson, his father, said he had not yet received the state’s response last week and that he would not comment on the case.

A high school student and his father have filed a lawsuit against the Wisconsin superintendent of public instruction, three school administrators and a math teacher, seeking to stop teachers from assigning homework over the summer. Peer Larson, 17, claims homework required for an honors pre-calculus course created an unfair workload and unnecessary stress for him during the summer, when he had lined up a job as a camp counselor.

"It didn’t completely ruin my summer, but it did give me a lot of undue stress both at home and at work," the high school junior told the Associated Press. "I just didn’t have the energy or time for it."

The Larsons’ lawsuit alleges that homework shouldn’t be required after the 180-day school year is over and asks the Milwaukee County Circuit Court to order an end to summer homework statewide. "These students are still children, yet they are subjected to increasing pressure to perform to ever-higher standards in numerous theaters," the Larsons’ complaint asserts.

School administrators tell a different story and object to the litigious turn the Larsons’ homework dispute has taken. The school district claims its officials told the Larsons that honors courses required some summer work, and Whitnall School Superintendent Karen Petric said she strongly believed "the district acted appropriately and didn’t do anything wrong." Petric also noted that court is not the place to solve homework complaints.

An attorney from the Wisconsin attorney general’s office will be assigned to respond to the lawsuit.

A man is suing NBC for $2.5 million, claiming the network should have warned viewers about an episode of the television show "Fear Factor" in which the contestants allegedly ate dead rats in order to win cash. Specifically, the man claims that watching such a disgusting display caused him to become light-headed and dizzy and led him to run into a doorway in his home, "causing suffering, injury and great pain."

The four-page handwritten complaint was filed in federal court in Cleveland, Ohio, by Austin Aitken, a paralegal. "To have the individuals on the show eat (yes) and drink rats was crazy and from a viewer’s point of view made me throw up as well as another in the house at the same time," Aitken’s lawsuit alleges. The complaint also claims that "NBC is sending the wrong message to its TV watchers that cash can make or have people do just about anything beyond reasoning [sic] and in most cases against their will."

According to CourtTV.com, Aitken says he still suffers when he thinks about the show and that his motivation to file the lawsuit was not the money. "This suit is out of concern to bring to the forefront the harmful effects TV has on viewers," Aitken said. But, when the Reuters wire service contacted Aitken for a telephone interview, the paralegal said, "I am not at liberty to discuss the complaint unless it is a paid-interview situation."

While lawyers may be Grinches, apparently at least one judge is not. When attorney Michael P. Lynn informed the District Court of Dallas County, Texas, that he planned to take a vacation over the holidays, an opposing lawyer in one of Lynn’s cases filed a motion asking the court to ignore the vacation request and schedule a hearing just before Christmas. In rhyming response, Lynn filed a brief entitled "How the Grinch Stole Christmas Vacation -or- Response to Request to Ignore Vacation Letter," in which he compared the lawyer’s actions to Dr. Seuss’s Grinch. The court declined to schedule the hearing before Christmas and upheld Lynn’s vacation plans.

Every Lynn
Down in Lynn-ville
Liked Christmas a lot…
But the Grinch,
Who lived at Akin Gump,
Did NOT!

The Grinch hated Christmas!
The whole Christmas season!
Now, please don’t ask why. No one quite knows the reason.
It could be that his arguments weren’t going quite right.
It could be, perhaps, that his clients’ wallets were too light.
But I think that the most likely reason of all
May have been that his briefs were two sizes too small.

But whatever the reason,
His briefs or thin skin,
He stood there on Christmas Eve, hating Mike Lynn,
Staring down from Pacific with a sour, Grinchy grin
At the warm lighted windows of Lynn Tillotson.
For he knew that Mike Lynn down in Lynn-ville beneath
Was busy now, writing another fine brief.

"They’re withholding documents!" he snarled with a sneer.
"My guys need to see those papers! There’s no privilege here!"
Then he growled, with his Grinch fingers wickedly drumming,
"I MUST find a way to keep the documents coming!"

For, tomorrow, he knew, all of Mike Lynn’s fine lawyers
The young and the old, would work hard for their employer.
And they’d cite! And they’d cite! And they’d CITE! CITE! CITE! CITE!
They would cite all the case law, from the West to the East
Which was something the Grinch couldn’t stand in the least!

And THEN they’d do something he liked least of all!
Every Lynn down in Lynn-ville, the tall and the small,
Would go from their offices, go all ’cross the nation.
They’d visit their loved ones. They’d go on vacation!

They’d play! And they’d play!
And they’d PLAY! PLAY! PLAY! PLAY!
And the more the Grinch thought of the whole holiday
The more the Grinch thought, "I must stop this today!
"Why for almost a week I've put up with it now!
I MUST get the privileged documents!...But HOW?"

"All I need is an associate …" The Grinch looked around.
But since the associates were scared of him, there was none to be found.
Did that stop the old Grinch? No! The Grinch simply said,
"If I can’t find an associate, I'll take a ‘partner’ instead!"
So he called his friend Chan and he took up his pen
And he pulled out his forms, and he laughed once again.

Then he contorted the rules and ignored precedent
Except a case overruled when Sam Houston was president.
Then the Grinch said, "Close enough! We must send the brief down
"Before all the Lynns have the chance to leave town."

But the Lynns were too quick, they were more than prepared.
Before the Grinch could get himself out of his chair
A vacation letter arrived from thin air!
"This is too much to take," the Grinch darkly hissed,
"My brief must be heard right away, oh no, I insist!"

So he muttered and sputtered. "I won't give an inch.
"There'll be no Christmas in Lynn-ville, or my name’s not the Grinch!"
And he gave it some thought, for a minute or two.
But after that minute, he knew what he’d do.
"Lynn thinks he’s going away – but what does he know?
"This vacation," he grinned, "is the first thing to go!"

Then he took up his pen and wrote things most unkind,
And through the whole letter he unfairly maligned.

"Untimely! Unreasonable! It just isn’t fair!
"A lawyer can’t go on vacation, he should not dare!"
Then he bundled it up, filed it late in the day.
The letter is attached, hereto, as Exhibit A.

So the Grinch had his motion, and the transmittal letter.
The idea of no vacation for Lynn, made him feel much better.
But the Grinch was not free yet, he’d committed a sin.
There’s one thing he’d forgotten: the rest of the Lynns!

That’s unfair said Mike’s wife and his daughters
He can’t blow our vacation plans out of the water.
The littlest Lynn stared at the letter, saying "Mr. Shore, why,
"Why are you taking Christmas away? WHY?"

But you know, that old Grinch was so mean and so sly
He dreamed up a crazy argument right there on the fly!
"Why, my sweet little tot, it is our position
"Your father didn’t get vacation permission.
"I want the hearing set for noon Christmas Eve
"A lawyer on holiday with his family? Don’t be naive!"

But the Lynns said that’s not right, we’ll file a response with the court,
The Grinch scowled and gave a sneer and a snort,
But there was one thing he forgot, and that was Judge Rhea,
Who had Christmas in his heart every single day.
So Judge Rhea and his Staff granted Mike’s request quick,
They thought to themselves that Grinch must be "sick."

Then every Lynn down in Lynn-ville, the tall and the small,
Started singing! Without any presents at all!
The Grinch HADN’T stopped Christmas from coming!
IT CAME!

And the Grinch, with his Grinch-feet ice-cold in the snow,
Stood puzzling and puzzling: "How could it be so?
It came without arguments! It came without a hearing!
"It came without affidavits, motions or leering!"
And he puzzled three hours, ’till his puzzler was sore.
Then the Grinch thought of something he hadn’t before!
"Maybe Christmas," he thought, "doesn’t come while at Court.
"Maybe Christmas…perhaps…has a little more import!"

And what happened then…?
Well…in Lynn-ville they say
That the Grinch’s small briefs
Grew three sizes that day!
All in great thanks to the Honorable Judge Rhea!

And the minute the Grinch’s briefs didn’t feel quite so tight,
He came out of his office in the bright morning light
And he unshackled the associates! Gave some food to Chan!
And he…
…HE HIMSELF…!
Took a Christmas vacation to a faraway land!