FoxNews: “Environmentalists, unable to squeeze ‘cap and trade’ rules through the U.S. Senate, have a new strategy for combating what they believe is man-made global warming: Lawsuits. . . . There currently are three lawsuits in different parts of the U.S. pushing this agenda, and more cases could be filed soon.” The current cases are Connecticut v. AEP. , Corner v. Murphy Oil and Kivalina v. Exxon.
“
Arthur Firstenberg sued his neighbor for emitting bad vibrations. He wants damages of $530,000 plus an injunction prohibiting the neighbor from using an iPhone, a wireless router, a laptop computer, and light dimmer switches. Oh the horror! Mr. Firstenberg says he has electromagnetic sensitivities. If this plaintiff wins, it could be a new gold mine of litigation for trial lawyers who will be able to convince juries without any proof that a defendant’s electronics caused the plaintiff’s medical condition. This is the kind of case that trial lawyers love because it is impossible to prove where or disprove the source of the plaintiff’s bad vibes.
See also “Wi-Fi anxiety: Man sues neighbor to shut off electronics.”
The United States owes the majority of the land in Utah. Gary Herbert, the state’s Governor, and the Utah legislature think Utah should own some of the federal government’s land. The legislature passed two laws signed by the Governor that direct the State of Utah to use its power of eminent domain to acquire ownership of some of the U.S.’s most valuable state land. The Utah legislature and Governor believe that federal ownership of the land restricts development. Eminent domain is a legal method used by governments to acquire land for public use.
New York Times: “The prosecutor brought charges Monday against nine teenagers, saying their taunting and physical threats were beyond the pale and led the freshman, Phoebe Prince, to hang herself from a stairwell in January.” See “Judge Overturns Conviction of Lori Drew in Cyberbullying Case” and “Missouri Cracks Down on Cyberbullying, Detains Teen for Creating Website.”
Statesman.com: “Owners say fee violates free speech; officials say it aids public safety. Is exotic dancing, performed partially clothed or fully nude, a form of free speech protected by the U.S. Constitution? Strip club owners insist that it is, and on Thursday they asked the Texas Supreme Court to strike down the state’s $5-per-patron tax as an unconstitutional limit on free expression.