Archives
- April 2004
- May 2004
- June 2004
- July 2004
- August 2004
- September 2004
- October 2004
- November 2004
- December 2004
- January 2005
- February 2005
- March 2005
- April 2005
- May 2005
- June 2005
- July 2005
- August 2005
- September 2005
- October 2005
- November 2005
- December 2005
- January 2006
- February 2006
- March 2006
- April 2006
- May 2006
- June 2006
- July 2006
- August 2006
- September 2006
- October 2006
- December 2006
- January 2007
- February 2007
- March 2007
- April 2007
- May 2007
- June 2007
- July 2007
- August 2007
- September 2007
- October 2007
- November 2007
- December 2007
- January 2008
- February 2008
- June 2008
- July 2008
- November 2008
- February 2009
Friday, January 06, 2006
One of the things I love about research is the little tidbits you find here and there throughout cases. For example, I found a case from the 1950s that talks about the reluctance of plaintiffs to pursue claims-I don't think you'd find anyone today saying anything of the sort, what with all the bitching you see about how all lawsuits are frivolous and god forbid we hold the corporations or insurance companies or negligent piecies of shit responsible for their actions. Ahem. Do people realize that we all end up paying when innocent victims are not compensated? Anyhow. I wondered if times had changed since the 1950s or if our view of plaintiffs has changed through how the media portray tort suits.
And it's always nice to see the snarky judges lay down-i.e. a dissent signed not with the normal, "I respectfully dissent" or even the implied snark, "I dissent" but with the much snarkier "I somewhat respectfully dissent."
And it's always nice to see the snarky judges lay down-i.e. a dissent signed not with the normal, "I respectfully dissent" or even the implied snark, "I dissent" but with the much snarkier "I somewhat respectfully dissent."
Comments:
Post a Comment