- Sid Salter jumped into a food fight with Philip Thomas, who remains one of my favorite blawgers. Take a look at it in the comments found here. I was somewhat surprised that Salter would jump in and comment like he did. Seemed out of character. But hey, we're all entitled to get our feathers ruffled every now and again.
- Speaking of Mr. Salter, he's got an article up that everyone needs to read. Under current law, private nursing homes are not required to carry liability insurance that would cover them up to the $500,000 cap on liability they obtained during the Tort Reform era in the early 2000's. HB 536 would fix that. State Sen. Buck Clarke has the bill in his committee, and it looks like he's going to try to kill it. John Maxey and Beth Clay have been hired by the nursing homes to attempt to kill the legislation. John Maxey is a very well-respected health care lawyer, and Beth Clay is considered by many to be the top lobbyist in the State. It's going to take quite a bit of grassroots support to get HB 536 out of Sen. Clarke's grip. Here's Sen. Clarke's webpage, complete with his email and phone number. Let him know how you feel.
- Will Bardwell continues to do an excellent job over at his blawg. He and Philip Thomas jumped all over the "majority" opinion in Wright v. Royal Carpet Services, handed down last week by the Court of Appeals. To put it succinctly, the Wright opinion says that if a party loses a motion in limine and then is the first to mention the objectionable evidence at trial, the issue is waived for appellate purposes. Put me down as agin' it.
- Radley Balko linked a fascinating website the other day that you all need to see. Letterheady.com is a collection of letterhead from famous people/entities, and will eat up a few hours of your day if you're not careful. Check out Nickola Tesla's.
Monday, March 1, 2010
Rumbling back to life...
OK, folks, I'm back from blog hiatus. I apologize for the lack of updates over the last month, but some things are just a bit more important than blogging. During my absence, I noted several things that I wanted to pass along, and in no particular order, here they are:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
Tye's shuts down and you suddenly pop back up over here. Coincidence?
I THINK NOT.
Ok, Matt, help me out here.
I read Royal Carpet. And agree with Maxwell's partial concurrence (which says there was no waiver after the ruling on the limine motion). But look at the voting: The Roberts opinion you don't like has 3 votes to it. One vote joins in the result but not the opinion. Maxwell picks up 4 votes.
Huh? Maxwell's got 5 votes and Roberts's 4 vote opinion with the weird procedural bar analysis rules the day?
I'm confused.
NMC - I'm confused as well. I think there may have been some mistakes in the vote count.
King - Cute.
Post a Comment