Condit apparently filed suit in federal court in Manhattan last week. How did I miss this story? In any event, Findlaw and CNN think it’s a bad idea, and I agree: “Condit should immediately withdraw his suit � for it is likely to hurt him far more than help him. Even assuming that Condit had nothing at all to do with Levy’s murder, his case is still a weak one. And discovery in the case could still prove very embarrassing for him, as well as hurtful to his wife and children. Moreover, even if Condit pursues his case to the bitter end, the damages he receives could be scant, at best.”
The Christian Science Monitor ponders that question here.
This article makes me think. I wonder what the statistics are in the U.S.? Britain lacks our shameful history of slavery and Jim Crow — but seems (from these statistics) to have similar problems with racism. Hmmmmm . . . .
The Supreme Court has issued a temporary stay in the case of the Texan computer guy who posted DVD “decryption” codes on the web, according to this. This is the case in which the California Supreme Court recently declined to assert jurisdiction over allegedly tortious acts that took place in Texas and Indiana, as discussed below. The ultimate issue is where web posters can be sued, given the reach of the “world wide” web. Wherever their websites can be accessed, or only where those websites are written and posted? The Australian Supreme Court recently answered the question with — essentially — “anywhere.” UPDATE to UPDATE The Supreme Court has dissolved the stay, after the defendant’s lawyers argued that the encryption codes the stay sought to keep secret have already been widely disseminated, and that the defendant had no intention of re-publishing them. The action is described here.
A California appellate court held today that, because the majority of the Coastal Commission’s members are appointed by and serve at the pleasure of the legislature, it cannot perform executive or quasi-judicial functions without violating the State Constitution’s separation of powers clause. Thus, the Commission is enjoined from “granting, denying, or conditioning permits, and from issuing and hearing cease and desist orders” — all things it habitually did. (The case is called Marine Forests Society v. Cal. Coastal Commission.)
The Coastal Commission is a hugely powerful and thoroughly politicized body. If I’m not mistaken, this is Big News in California. You can read the Third Appellate District’s opinion here (PDF). UPDATE: Here’s an article about the Court’s ruling.
The New York Times reported Thursday about possible openings on the Supreme Court and the Bush Administration’s possible picks in this article.
The Journal chose James Ellis, a New Mexico law professor who had never appeared in any court before, for convincing the Supreme Court that executing the mentally retarded is cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth Amendment. Congratulations, Professor Ellis! The article appears here.
A New York judge has ruled that potentially “explosive” emails from a J.P. Morgan Chase & Co. executive are admissible against it in Chase’s suit against some 11 insurance companies. The emails refer to the transactions at issue as “disguised loans,” which would make them uninsurable under NY law. Read about it here in an article from law.com.