According to a representative of the group:

“In reviewing the history, it became more and more clear to us there really was not a rational basis for the current law. The fact the law says pharmacies, convenience stores and grocery stores are capable enough to sell the product warm, then it gets rather arbitrary about what temperature it can be sold at. When you change the temperature, it doesn’t change the alcohol content.”

Ironically, the grocery stores and convenience stores can already sell chilled wine.  I’d say the probably have a decent case that the law is indeed arbitrary.  Nevertheless, it’s probably still a long shot that they win the lawsuit, but here’s to hoping the good guys win this one.

Vijahy was privately suspended by the PGA a few months back after he admitted using a performance enhancing drug known as “deer antler spray.”  Deer antler spray allegedly contains substances banned by the PGA tour.  However, after some legal maneuvering, Vijahy was able to avoid serving any suspension. Now Vijahy claims that there never was any reason to suspend him in the first place. So, naturally, he has filed a lawsuit  alleging that the PGA tour negligently and intentional inflicted emotional distress upon him.

Emotional distress claims are notoriously difficult to prove.  Negligent infliction of emotional distress requires, at minimum, that a Plaintiff prove that he was in a zone of impact and suffered physical manifestation.  Intentional infliction of emotional distress claims require proving that the defendant intentional or reckless acted in a manner so heinous and beyond the standards of civilized decency or utterly intolerable in a civilized society.  Very very doubtful that Vijahy can prove either.

When you are pro golf and you admit to using suspect performance enhancing drugs, you run the risk of ticking off your employer and getting suspended.   Unless Vijahy’s got some really good hidden evidence in his golf bag, it is unlikely that this case is going anywhere.

Well, it happened recently in a Michigan courtroom, except it was the judge himself who was the offender.  To the judge’s credit, he held himself in contempt.

According to an account at MLive, Judge Raymond Voet had recently purchased a new phone, and apparently, he didn’t lock it properly before court.  He surmises that he bumped the screen, and it began asking him who he wanted to call.  You know, the old “please say a command” prompt.  This was, of course, in the middle of the prosecution’s closing argument.

To make matters worse, Judge Voet reportedly had trouble turning it off.

The judge is apparently known for being a real stickler about cellphones.  In fact, he has signs posted outside his courtroom warning cellphone users that they face  a $25 fine and could lose their electronic device if it does off during a hearing.  He is even said to have taken phones from police officers and personal friends.

So what did the judge do about his own indiscretion?  Apologize and move on?  Consider becoming a little less strict on others?  Nope.  Judge Voet held himself in contempt and walked downstairs during a court recess to pay the same $25 fine he imposes on other offenders.

Earlier this month, according to the New York Daily News, he went to trial claiming that a wine dealer sold him 24 bottles of a bogus vintage bordeaux.  A New York jury found his claim to be true and felt that this dastardly deed warranted $12 million dollars in punitive damages. Mr. Koch originally spent $300,000 on the 24 bottles of “vintage” bordeaux, which he bought from Eric Greenberg.  The wine turned out to not be the real deal.  Koch blamed Greenberg for intentionally selling him the bogus wine and perpetuating a “code of silence in the [vintage wine] industry.”   Mr. Greenberg claimed that he offered to refund Mr. Koch his money when he learned that the bottles of wine were fake.  But that was not good enough for the billionaire.  Only a lawsuit and millions of dollars in punitive damages could right this wrong.  The jury awarded him $380,000 in actual damages and $12 million in punitive damages.

Lest you think Mr. Koch is just some out of touch billionaire that likes to spend more on wine than you spent on your home, we note that he plans to put $12 million verdict to good use.  Koch said he would use the money to “set up a fund to go after wine fraud and auction fraud.”  He’s bound and determined to put an end to the travesty of really rich people buying expensive fake booze.

It isn’t helping starving kids in Africa, but its something.

The lawsuit alleges that United breached its frequent flyer contract by not awarding them for miles actually flown.  According to the lawsuit, the passenger’s flight from Dulles Airport to Beijing International Airport actually measured in 7,276 miles.  However, he was awarded only 6,920 miles, which is the shortest straight line distance between the two airports.

A quick scan of the official rules for United Airlines’ frequent flyer program reveals no information as to how miles are calculated.  However, there is some vague language about being able to modify the “currently recognized” means of accumulation without notice.   When asked by The Cleveland Plain Dealer, a United spokesperson declined comment on how the miles are calculated, but we expect United will argue that the rules essentially allow them to calculate miles however they please.  United did state that it believes the lawsuit to be merit-less.

Given the low monetary value of the “missing” miles, the suit certainly appears frivolous.  It is not unreasonable for United to credit for a straight-line distance between origin and destination.  Other airlines apparently calculate miles the same way.  However, the question is, why doesn’t United just spell it out in the program rules?

In our litigious society, United should have seen this one coming from a “mile” away. Don’t sue us for our pun.

As you might have guessed, the class-action lawsuit accuses The Met of duping the public into believing that the $25 donation is required for admission.  In so doing, the lawsuit claims that The Met uses misleading marketing and training of cashiers to violate an 1893 New York state law mandating free admission a certain of number of days per week. Apparently, a former museum supervisor will testify on behalf of the Plaintiffs that cashiers were trained to encourage the $25 dollar donation by advising patrons of the museum’s large costs.  Also, in 2010, The Met allegedly changed its signage from “suggested” donation to “recommended” donation.  Outrageous!

The Met has, of course, denied the allegations.  Perhaps the plaintiffs can make an issue of the 1893 law.  Arguably, requiring a one cent donation for admission violates that law.  However, a Met spokesperson claims “[t]he idea that the museum is free to everyone who doesn’t wish to pay has not been in force for nearly 40 years.”  Apparently, in 1970, the New York City Department of Cultural Affairs agreed to allow a required donation for admission so long as patrons could determine what amount they wanted to pay.

Regardless of the outcome of the suit, don’t feel too bad for The Met.  It has $2.58 billion investment portfolio and most of its donations come from non-admissions related donations.

On a related note, if you ever find yourself in New York during the spring or early fall, it is well worth it to shell out your penny for admission and head up to The Met’s Roof Garden Café and Martini Bar.  Unfortunately, the beers ($8.75) aren’t as good of a deal as the admission donation.

Penn brought suit in federal court against the California based Wharton Business Foundation for its use of the word “Wharton.” According to its website, the Wharton Business Foundation offers business education and consulting services.  The education component is actually called the Wharton Business Foundation University.  Penn alleges that the Wharton Business Foundation has no legitimate reason to use the name “Wharton” in its brand.  The “Meet Our Team” section of the website doesn’t list anyone with the Wharton name.

The Wharton School bears its name because it was established in 1881 via a donation from Joseph Wharton.  Penn claims it has used the Wharton registered mark since 1881 for business education and since 1953 for business consultation.  The complaint, which is available on PACER, alleges that the Wharton Business Foundation’s name creates “a likelihood of confusion in the marketplace” and “a false impressing in the minds of consumers that WBF is affiliated with, endorsed or sponsored by [Penn], particularly the Wharton School.”

We’ll be keeping our eye on this suit.

On a side note, why don’t law schools have the type of “bling” that business schools have?  Having attended both law school and business school, I suspect it is because most lawyers block out all memories of their learning years.  Business school, on the other hand, is an enjoyable experience.  Also: Most business school graduates actually find jobs in their field, and thus, have money to donate.

Addiction to prescription pain killers is actually a serious problem in this country.  As a former  prosecutor, I saw it all too often where a person started out with a legitimate need for prescription narcotics, but over time, became addicted and began to abuse pills.  What started with a prescription at the pharmacy ended witha bust for buying stolen pills from drug dealers.  Clearly, there’s a need a for some reform in this area.  But could litigation really be the avenue to help patients avoid addition?  Some Nevada lawmakers clearly think more litigation is the answer.

Nevada lawmakers have proposed a new bill that would create liability for physicians and drug manufacturers if a patient becomes addicted to prescription drugs.  Under the proposed law, if a patient prevails in the suit, the defendant would be liable to pay for the patients’ rehab and attorney’s fees, as well as possible punitive damages.  State Sen  Tick Segerblom, one of the bill’s sponsors, told the AP,  “They know the person can get addicted to the drug so they should pay for the process of them getting off it.”  Oh, to live in the simple black and white world of a state senator.

Prescription narcotics are without a doubt necessary for pain management in a great number of cases.  And doctors will say that just about anyone who takes prescription narcotics will develop at least some level of dependency.  They key is making sure that the dependency doesn’t turn abusive and that patients are properly weaned off the drugs when the time comes.   Yet even if a doctor properly manages a patient’s treatment and oversees their prescription drug use, this bill seeks to hold them strictly liable if the patient begins abusing prescription drugs.  Not surprisingly, the bill has faced sharp opposition from the medical community.   It’s hard to see how that would help the situation other than to make doctors gunshy about prescribing the drugs.

Of course, as little sense as the law makes with respect to doctors, it makes even less sense with respect to the drug manufacturers.  There’s no doubt the drugs are vital to a great number of patients, and they have legitimate place in the practice of medicine.  If the drug makers have provided all of the proper warnings, how can they be held liable for a doctor’s judgment as to whom they should be prescribed to and in what amount?  Are we trying to get the drug makers involved in the process of actually prescribing the drugs?

In the end, it’s doubtful this bill will pass.  But if it does, it will accomplish nothing more than putting a few more bucks in the pockets of some plaintiff’s attorneys.

So what’s the big payday for our lucky winners? As far as class action settlements go, it’s actually a pretty decent settlement for the aggrieved parties.  For any member of the class whose kids purchased made an in-alp purchase for less than $5, Apple will issue a $5 iTunes gift card. For those between $5 and $30 in unauthorized purchases, Apple will issue a full refund in the form of a gift card.  Users whose little rascals spent more than $30 can choose to get a full cash refund.

If your kids made any unauthorized in-app purchases check your inbox in the months to come.  The settlement requires Apple to send a notification to all iTunes account holders who made in-app purchases.