The Law Blog of Plaintiff's Attorney Max Kennerly
Victoria Pynchon responds again in our ongoing conversation.
First, a comment on one of her later posts. She quotes an article in California Lawyer in which a litigator advises parties lobby the devil out of mediators prior to the mediation because:
If the other side convinces the mediator that you will accept a lesser result…
Victoria Pynchon has responded to my question about getting parties to the settlement table pre-trial, although she hasn’t had a chance to answer it fully since she apparently has a real job outside of blogging.
While we’re waiting, I do want to address the study (to be published in the Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, …
Victoria Pynchon lays down the gauntlet (read: politely, generously and substantively replies) in response to my post about opening you and your client up to ‘social influence’ both as a comment and as a blog post.
I’m honored! I’m a big fan.
Pynchon writes (I’m mixing both her comment and blog post here):
The
…
43(B)log recounts the delicious facts of Pom Wonderful LLC v. Purely Juice, Inc. (C.D. Cal., July 17, 2008).
Apparently there’s a law that says your “100% pomegranate juice” that’s “all natural” with “NO added sugars or sweeteners” can’t be made entirely of corn syrup and fruits other than pomegranate.
Who knew?
In a ruling that could have far-reaching effects on the handling of high-profile trials, the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled Friday that the media has a presumptive right of access to the names of jurors, and that a Pittsburgh federal judge erred when he sought to empanel an
…
Drug and Device Law has an exceptionally detailed post about the new voluntary PhRMA guidelines, along with dozens of cases holding that such guidelines don’t create negligence per se liability standards, particularly not retroactively.
But what about ordinary, post hoc negligence? Can voluntary industry codes be relevant to the standard of care?
Absolutely! For example,…
A reminder courtesy of the Pennsylvania Superior Court:
Initially, we must address the Seller’s position that since Buyer appealed from the order denying post-trial motions rather than the pretrial ruling limiting his claim for consequential damages, we "lack jurisdiction" to "hear his complaints about the pretrial ruling." Brief of Appellee and Cross-Appellant Michael Bupp at
…
Cal Biz Lit details a great example of bungling the evidence at trial on an entirely undisputed point, to the tune of $57,394.24:
Under Hanif v. Housing Authority (1988) 200 Cal.App.3d 635 and Nishihama v. City and County of San Francisco (2001) 93 Cal.App.4th 298, when a plaintiff has medical insurance, damages are limited to
…
One of the few constants I have found across all trial is: the jury will take any opportunity to make fun of the lawyers, the parties, and the judge, in that order.
Understand that and embrace it. At the five-week trial, jurors referred to me and my co-counsel as "Batman and Robin" and to…
There’s a lot of chatter (at Election Law Blog and Concurring Opinions) about this footnote in Exxon v. Baker (by Souter, writing for the Court):
The Court is aware of a body of literature running parallel to anecdotal reports, examining the predictability of punitive awards by conducting numerous “mock juries,” where different “jurors” are
…