Rick Baudé Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> >
>
> <URL to Spike Lee suing Spike TV>

Lee lost this case when his original injunction against the network was thrown out and he eventually settled out of court with Spike TV, even to the point of issuing this statement at the time of settlement:

On reviewing circumstances concerning the name change, I no longer believe Viacom deliberately intended to trade on my name when naming Spike TV. (July 9, 2003)

<URL to Judge suing his own county courthouse due to his slip and fall>

...and why not? Here's the full story, dated 11 January 2008:

In Massachusetts, Middlesex Superior Court Judge Paul Chernoff is suing the state of Massachusetts and Norfolk County for the injuries he sustained when he slipped and fell on the steps of the Norfolk County Courthouse in Lowell in 2004. The commonwealth of Massachusetts, the Norfolk County Commission, and the Division of Capital Asset Management were named as the parties held liable for not making sure that the building was maintained properly.

In his premises liability lawsuit, Chernoff alleges that his slip and fall accident occurred because the county and the state did not repair the cracks in the steps of the court building or add handrails. As a result of the unsafe conditions, Chernoff says that he slipped and broke his left kneecap. Since Chernoff’s accident, new handrails have been added to the staircase.

Source: Boston Lawyers Injury Blog

I can think of probably hundreds, if not thousands, of similar lawsuits brought for slip and fall injuries against government and private sector buildings, churches, parks etc. all for the same reason - if you as the owner don't maintain your facilities, and someone is injured due to that negligence, you are going to be sued over that injury for premises liability - it's that simple. The sheer fact the county has now installed the handrails in question shows they recognised some legal culpability on their part.

<url on case of Roy Pearson suing his dry cleaners for $67 million (later reduced to $54 million) for lost pants>

This case also went against Pearson, although really no one won here, IMO: to wit:

On June 25, 2007, the trial ended with District of Columbia Superior Court Judge Judith Bartnoff ruling in favor of the dry cleaners, and awarding them court costs pursuant to a motion which the Chungs later withdrew.[14] The court took judicial notice of Pearson's divorce proceedings, where he was sanctioned $12,000 by the trial court for "creating unnecessary litigation and threatening both (his former wife) [Rhonda] VanLowe and her lawyer with disbarment.[15][16]

Post-trial motions and appeal

On July 11, 2007, Pearson made a motion to reconsider in the trial court, stating that he felt the judge had "committed a fundamental legal error" and had failed to address his legal claims.[17] Pearson stated that he believed the court had imposed its own conditional interpretation of 'satisfaction guaranteed' rather than what Pearson believes is an offer of unconditional and unambiguous satisfaction. The court denied the motion.[18]

The Chungs' moved to recover $83,000 in attorneys' fees and impose sanctions, but withdrew the motion after recovering their costs through fund-raising; the Chungs stated that they did so in the hopes of persuading Pearson to stop litigating.[19] But on August 14, 2007, Pearson filed a notice of appeal.[19]

On August 2, 2007 it was revealed that a panel recommended not to give Pearson a ten year term as an Administrative Law Judge, after his initial two year term expired mid-2007, in part because his suit against Mr Chung demonstrated a lack of "judicial temperament." Pearson was appointed in 2005 and will lose his $100,512 salary if a hearing upholds that decision.[20]

On October 22, a D.C. commission voted against reappointing Pearson, a graduate of the Northwestern University School of Law, to the bench of the Office of Administrative Hearings. [21] On November 14, it was confirmed that Pearson had lost his job by not being affirmed for an extension. [22]

On July 24, 2007, the American Tort Reform Association and the Institute for Legal Reform of the United States Chamber of Commerce hosted a fundraiser for the Chungs to help pay their attorneys fees that reported having raised up to $64,000.00. [30] The Chungs say they have received close to $100,000 from supporters to cover their attorneys' fees and lost business.[19]

Citing a loss of revenue and emotional strain from the lawsuit, the Chungs announced, on September 19, 2007, that they have closed and sold the dry cleaning shop involved in the dispute. The Chungs still own one additional dry cleaning shop and have stated they will be focusing their attention and resources on their remaining shop.[31]

Source: Wikipedia article on Pearson v. Chung, with citations

It actually does no good to post ridiculous URL's from incendiary blogspots over some legal issue, particularly when it shows that's all you know about a case.

But until you actually follow up what the cases are all about or how they turned out, you simply look like some whiner about legal action and lawyers - and without much to support your rants, IMO.

Again, if you're going to rant about the law, at least get it right.

Katherine Griffis-Greenberg, J. D.

=================
DISCLAIMER:

Not a practicing attorney, and no attorney-client relationship is created. This response is for discussion purposes only. It isn't meant to be legal advice. If you wish legal advice, seek out an attorney in your own state who is familiar with your state's laws and applications thereof.