In the comic book cover above, World’s Finest #186, published in 1969, we learn that Superman may not be the biggest fan of the federal sentencing guidelines. Or the Eighth Amendment, for that matter.

Last week, we posted our review of the awful new television legal drama, “Outlaw,” starring Jimmy Smits. Just a few days later, the Above The Law blog published its own review of the first episode. Are we here at Abnormal Use now trendsetters?

John A. Day at the Day on Torts blog has a post entitled “Googling Potential Jurors,” in which he analyzes one trial court’s recent prohibition of Plaintiff’s counsel using Google in the courtroom to investigate those who might become jurors. On appeal, the appellate court rebuked the trial court for shutting down the searches. (See also this post at the Internet Cases blog for more on that same case).

David A. Oliver at the DRI Blog asks if we have now reached “The End of Toxic Tort Litigation in Texas?” That’s an often asked question, but Oliver has some new thoughts.

Lawyerist has this post on “How to Run Effective Meetings.” This should, perhaps, be mandatory reading for shareholders at firms across the United States.

Seattle Weekly offers its list of the seven best covers of Paul McCartney songs, with accompanying video. We might have included Stevie Wonder’s cover of “We Can Work It Out” (but perhaps that was influenced a bit too much by John Lennon to truly constitute a “Paul McCartney song.”).

Above, you’ll find the cover for Superman’s Pal, Jimmy Olsen #28, published way back in 1958, which depicts Jimmy Olsen as “The Boy Who Killed Superman.” Note that he is in a police line-up, presumably for identification purposes, though the police officer is already presenting the evidence against him. (We love that there is a label tied to a piece of Kryptonite noting that it is “Exhibit B,” even though Olsen has yet to be identified, much less indicted or brought to trial.). We’ll leave it to the criminal lawyers to opine on whether the officer’s asking “Where have you hidden [Superman’s] body?” constitutes a custodial interrogation. However, this being 1958, Jimmy would not yet have been afforded many of the protections fashioned by the Warren Court. Oh, well.

Speaking of comic books, after months and months of commenting upon silly and fun superhero/courtroom comic book covers in our Friday Links posts, we now learn that the Ivy League has taken an interest and created an exhibit on that very subject. Earlier this month, our friends at the Yale Law School Library debuted the exhibit, “Superheroes in Court! Lawyers, Law and Comic Books,”which is curated by Mark S. Zaid. If you find yourself in Connecticut, you must see this exhibition, which runs until December 16, 2010 . See here for some official information on the exhibit, including a handful of covers, some of which even we here had not previously seen. (Thanks to eagle eyed reader Ryan Steans for bringing this New York Times piece on the exhibit to our attention.).

Man, the Wall Street Journal Law Blog beat us to the punch with the Rolling Stones allusion in their piece on the Ninth Circuit’s striking down of a municipal tattoo parlor ban. South Carolina is no stranger to such issues, as it banned tattoo parlors until 2006, when the 36 year old prohibition, which had survived a constitutional challenge in the courts, was repealed by the legislature. For more on the Ninth’s Circuit’s recent ruling, see here, here, and here.

The Evidence Law Prof Blog analyzes a recent North Carolina case regarding the authentication of emails, still a hot topic, even after all of these years of email use.

Civility seems to be the issue of the week. The DRI Blog has a piece by Brett A. Ross entitled “Professionalism: It’s not Just for Kids Anymore,” in which the author notes that “as mature practitioners, we should know better how to respond to bad behavior by our opponents even though it often seems that is not the case.” Meanwhile, Lawyerist has “Are You Civil With Opposing Counsel?,” in which the author’s advice is “Stick to your guns and keep it civil. It will pay off in the long run.” And our pals at Overlawyered have this post, in which they analyze a recent scolding of uncooperative counsel by a U.S. Magistrate.

Yesterday, Kevin Couch, one of our intrepid bloggers at this site, posted his review of the new Jimmy Smits legal drama, “Outlaw.” Apparently, the show is about a U.S. Supreme Court Justice, played by Smits, whose frustration with the system causes him to resign his seat on the Court and go about righting wrongs and correcting injustices in the trenches. (It seems he was in a pretty good position to do that on the U.S. Supreme Court, but oh well, it’s television.). Our thought: It would have been much more interesting had this series been a direct sequel to “L.A. Law” and Smits was playing his old character Victor Sifuentes, who had somehow managed to make it all the way from Los Angeles to the nation’s High Court. Another potential benefit of that approach: Susan Dey cameos.

Finally, we learned this week that Bob Dylan, the immortal folk singer, the voice of his generation, will be playing a concert later this year in nearby Clemson. We’ve seen him before and walked away unimpressed, so we leave you with a piece from Seattle Weekly, entitled “Top 7 Reasons to Walk Out of a Bob Dylan Show.” (Full disclosure: we adore our CD of the 1966 “Royal Albert Hall” concert, but that show was some time ago.).

We here at Abnormal Use believe that Superman may have an Eighth Amendment claim against Batman based on the conduct depicted above on the cover of World’s Finest #145, published way back in 1964. Of course, that assumes that the Man of Steel can establish that Batman is, for the purposes of his warden duties, a state actor. Can he do so?

“I’ve found, what my clerks do now, when they have interesting cases — They read blogs,” Anthony Kennedy, Associate Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, August 19, 2010. (Hat tip: The Volokh Conspiracy). Now our hopes are up for a Supreme Court citation.

The Wall Street Journal Law Blog alerts us to the fact that the Burning Man music festival has its own barrister. What about Bonnaroo, though?

If you thought law school was insufficiently wearisome, you might investigate Texas Tech University’s new joint J.D./M.D. program, which the Tex Parte Blog profiled here.

Eric Goldman of the Technology & Marketing Law Blog ponders the Texas Attorney General’s probe of Google’s search engine practices.

Steven F. Coronado at the DRI Blog has this piece about the perils of jurors updating their Facebook statuses to reflect their thoughts on ongoing trials. If you’re on a juror, it’s probably best not to tweet that you can’t wait to render a guilty verdict.

Okay, now this is, well, awesome. Terry Tottenham, the President of the State Bar of Texas, quotes Bruce Springsteen lyrics not once, but twice, in his column this month in the Texas Bar Journal. Can you guess which two songs he quoted? See here for the column.

We welcome the newly launched South Carolina Tax Credit Blog to our state’s legal blogosphere. (Hat tip: South Carolina Business Law Blog).

We sometimes find ourselves nostalgic for law school, and then we realize what we must be thinking. A former teacher and now a brand new law school student, the author of the blog Tanny’s News recounts what happened last week to a student who was late to class: “One of my esteemed colleagues was late the second day of class, didn’t know the answers when called on the third day of class, and was late again the fourth day of class. In real life, our clients suffer the consequences of our mistakes. So, our whole class, except this student, has to spend the weekend writing a 5-6 page memo on the consequences of lawyers being late to court. As a teacher, I marvel at the brilliance of this plan. I used to do similar things to my students when 2/3 of them were involved in something and I couldn’t pick out which ones were innocent. I always felt badly for the innocent ones, but now I can truly understand how they must have felt.”

After a 21 month absence from the blogosphere, the South Carolina Bid Protests Blog triumphantly returns with a new post. Welcome back!

The Mac Lawyer has this post entitled “5 Essential iPad Apps for Students.” This makes us feel very old, as our only study aids were dusty old copies of Emmanuel outlines.

Here’s the first paragraph of the abstract from Lucille A. Jewel’s article, “I Can Has Lawyer? The Conflict Between the Participatory Culture of the Internet and the Legal Profession,” which is thought provoking: “The Internet allows citizens to comment on public affairs with an amplified and unfiltered voice, creating an open, community-based culture where robust debate flourishes. However, many of the ideals and practices of participatory culture clash with the traditional legal culture as it exists in the United States. This cultural conflict can be seen in emerging narratives, in the form of web blogs and lawyer emails that go “viral,” in which lawyers comment on the lack of humanism within big law firm hiring and firing practices; expose the alienating work environments experienced by low-level contract attorneys; or criticize judges who show hostility toward criminal defense attorneys. ” (Hat tip: Media Law Prof Blog).

We couldn’t resist sharing this gem at the My Legal Fiction blog, entitled “Woody Allen Jokes As Applied To Law School.” (Hat Tip: Legal Underground).

We here at Abnormal Use are not family lawyers, but we like to think that if we were, we would zealously conduct ourselves in the courtroom in the manner that Superman does above, on the cover of Superman’s Pal Jimmy Olsen #128, published way back in July of 1970. Note that the Man of Steel flies through the open courthouse window (apparently bypassing courthouse security) in order to object to archaeologist Hal Rand’s attempt to adopt Jimmy. (Since it’s obviously an adult adoption, perhaps Rand just wanted someone who would be able to inherit from him if he passed away.). Someone should probably tell Superman that banging one’s fist on the judge’s bench is probably ineffective, though. Jimmy apparently prefers great wealth and a fine home to Superman’s offer of a cold and lonely existence at the Fortress of Solitude. Or perhaps the social worker gave up on trying to make an in-home visit to Superman’s secret hideaway. In addition, apparently Superman had not developed his ability to reverse time in 1970. Why would a superhero of Superman’s caliber come flying in as the judge makes his ruling? Wouldn’t it be easier to arrive about ten minutes earlier and push Hal Rand in a great crevasse?

We love history and true crime. The Media LawProf Blog has published the abstract of Edward Larson recent piece in the American Journal of Legal History, “An American Tragedy: Retelling the Leopold-Loeb Story in Popular Culture.” The Leopold and Loeb crimes were the basis – for the most part – of Alfred Hitchcock’s stellar 1948 flick, Rope (which was apparently itself based upon a 1929 play by Patrick Hamilton).

Quote of the Week: “That sum, demanded by a Las Vegas man in a suit against three Utah attorneys, is far in excess of all the money in the world, so there may be collectibility problems,” Walter Olson, commenting here at Overlawyered, in response to news that a Plaintiff in a recent lawsuit has demanded $38 quadrillion. (The dispute apparently also involved a $918 billion lien.). Well, at least the amount in controversy is clear for removal purposes, eh?

Lawyerist reports on an interesting dust-up between an attorney blogger and LegalZoom.

Robin Wheeler at the South Carolina Access to Justice Weblog has a post entitled “Why I Do Pro Bono . . .”

The Litigation and Trial Blog has a nice post about the City of Philadelphia’s current attempts to apply its business privilege license requirements to local blogs. For the record, this blog is not, nor has it ever been, based out of Philadelphia.

We don’t usually cite to the Word Spy here on Friday Links, but how could we not bring your attention to the phrase “iPod Oblivion,” defined as “Obliviousness to one’s surroundings caused by listening to an iPod or similar device.”

The Rainmaker Blog asks, “Should Attorneys Tweet?” We here, we merry few, say yes.

Amanda Ray at the North Carolina Appellate Blog has this post, entitled “COA: Expert Witness Costs May Only Be Awarded If the Expert Was Under Subpoena (But Language in Scheduling Order Could Waive This Requirement.” Long title, but it fits. She’s describing the North Carolina Court of Appeals’ new opinion in Jarrell v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Hospital Authority.

Earlier this month, Morihiko Nakahara, the Music Director of the South Carolina Philharmonic, spoke to the South Carolina Women Lawyers Association. The Association’s blog, The Briefcase, has a nice write-up of the event here.

The ContractsProf Blog has another post about, well, Paris Hilton. Uh, what happened to teaching Wood v. Lucy, Lady Duff Gordon? Well, I guess it’s okay. Both cases involve pretentious socialites, so there you go.

Finally, the occasionally salacious, always funny eavesdropping website Overheard in New York provides link fodder for a legal blog. See here for a recent courtroom exchange which a contributor to that site overheard and reported.

Meredith R. Miller of the ContractsProf Blog asks in this post if a website’s privacy policy constitutes a binding contract.

We’re a bit surprised that Lawyerist has to ask, “Do Lawyers Need Smartphones?” It’s 2010. Everyone needs a smartphone. Lawyers (arguably) are a subset of people, and thus, they need smartphones. Why would they not?

A Kansas driver has a vanity plate that says “So Sue Me.” (Hat Tip: Overlawyered). One of our contributors – we won’t say who – has a vanity plate that says “LACHES.”

Speaking of Overlawyered, that site’s Ted Frank is going on a speaking tour to various states, but not South Carolina. We hope he’ll make it our way soon.

We always knew that Facebook would be the end of all things good and just. In this post, the Technology and Marketing Law Blog reports the following: “The Eastern District of Pennsylvania recently concluded that a Facebook ‘friendship’ between a Temple University disciplinary board member and a witness may have procedurally undermined a disciplinary hearing.”

A judicial candidate in Florida may not personally promote his or her campaign on Facebook, says the Florida Judicial Ethics Advisory Committee in a recent opinion. However, the opinion does note that a committee working on behalf of the judicial campaign may establish such a Facebook presence; it’s just that the judge may not do so in his or her own personal capacity. (Hat tip: The Legal Profession Blog).

Hold onto your hats: The Workplace Prof Blog informs us that a new edition of The Bluebook has been published. Ah, The Bluebook. It will forever remind of those halcyon law school days when we performed citation checks on articles assigned to us by our law review editors.

The Detroit Free Press has a great article about crazy statutes still on the books. (Hat tip: The Business Law Prof Blog). Our favorite? It is illegal in Clawson to throw a snowball. Someday, perhaps, we’ll do a similar analysis of South Carolina laws.

We hope this one doesn’t go to litigation. The DRI Blog has a post entitled “Frozen Reptile Food Poses Salmonella Risk to Snake Owners.” Yikes. We’re at a loss.

Overlawyered reports on the interplay between the ADA and South Carolina courthouses.

• Eric Goldman of the Technology and Marketing Blog has this post, entitled “Private Facebook Group’s Conversations Aren’t Defamatory.” In so doing, he profiles the recent case of Finkel v. Dauber, 2010 WL 2872874 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. July 22, 2010), in which the court was called upon to review a private group started by a group of puerile high school students and dedicated to making fun of a classmate, who brought suit for defamation. Goldman notes that “the group’s discussion is embarrassingly puerile and hearkens back to John Hughes’ bleak depictions of high school life.” Ah, high school.
• The Tex Parte Blog has this post about the perils of attorneys attempting to follow up with an appellate court about the release of an overdue opinion. Apparently, counsel for the Plaintiff contacted with the Texas Supreme Court to inquire about a matter which had been pending before the court for four years. Eight days after the request was made, the Texas Supreme Court issued its opinion and ruled against the Plaintiff.
• The title of this post at the Legal Profession Blog, “After Failed Witchcraft, Client in Love With Attorney Sought Hit Man to Murder His Wife,” says it all. A must read. Who knew workers compensation litigation could be so dangerous?
• The North Carolina Business Litigation Report has this post entitled “A Tale of Reluctant Reconsideration in the Business Court.” In that post , author John Buford tells of a recent case in which the North Carolina Business Court “reconsidered and reversed the prior dismissal of a breach of fiduciary duty claim, but the principles it outlined should not give litigants high hopes for reconsideration motions in general.”
• And, no, we here at Abnormal Use have still not yet seen Inception. Well, contributor Kevin Couch has, but he is under strict orders not to reveal any spoilers.

• We here at Abnormal Use love it when a discussion on the music blogs migrates over to the law blogs. Depicted above is the cover of Contra, the second album by the indie rock group Vampire Weekend. When the album was released earlier this year, the band refused to identify its cover model, but they did note that the photograph was taken way back in 1983. Last week, though, the model in question field suit against the band and the purported photographer, claiming that she never signed a release and that the photographer purporting to have taken the photograph 27 years ago did not, in fact, do so. News of the lawsuit started on the music blogs, but earlier this week, the Wall Street Journal Law Blog took notice, summarizing the dispute as follows:
  

  So, an indie rock band chooses a 26-year-old photo of a unsuspecting mom from Connecticut for its new album cover, in which she looks like a schoolgirl about to be attacked by a vampire.

  So what?, XL Recordings, the label for Vampire Weekend, has said in response to a $2 million lawsuit by former fashion model Ann Kirsten Kennis, whose sultry 1983 photo graces the cover of the band’s newest album, Contra.

  The record label told cbsnews.com that it has a legitimate licensing agreement for the picture and that it would see Kennis in court if she pushed her claim that the band was using the picture without her authorization. Click here for another story, from Entertainment Weekly.

  Kennis, however, claims that her signature was forged on a release form by photographer Tod Brody.

  Whatever comes of this suit, one thing remains true: it’s a great album.

  (See additional coverage of this lawsuit here and here).

• You may recall that two weeks ago we mentioned Tito’s Wing Challenge, a contest at Grille 33 at the Channel, a local burger joint here in Greenville, South Carolina. Well, it appears that Greenvillians may not have been up to the task, as the contest has been watered down a bit, presumably due to local patrons’ inability to beat it. Just two weeks ago, a contestant was required to eat a dozen hot wings in 15 minutes and then wait 15 minutes before taking a drink. Well, as shown in the above photograph, Grille 33 has altered the challenge. Now, contestants need only wait five minutes before taking a drink after consuming all of their required wings.
• The South Carolina Small Firm Blog has a post on disposing of old hard drives.
• J. Benjamin Stevens at the South Carolina Family Law Blog offers these additional thoughts on Jennings v. Jennings, a new South Carolina Court of Appeals case we previously mentioned here. You’ll recall that was the case involving a wife’s surreptitious use of her husband’s email account and the legal ramifications thereof.