Every time the class action bill looks as if it may be nearing Congressional action, the Chicago Tribune publishes a well-reasoned editorial in favor of it -- here's the latest -- while the New York Times publishes a dyspeptic rant against. This time the editorialists at the Times fret that the ultimate effect of the bill will be "to dilute the impact of the strong consumer protection laws in many states". Martin Grace wonders what the paper is talking about, since the bill would in general instruct federal courts to apply the various state laws in question. He thinks he's figured out what upsets the Times: it would be harder for class action lawyers to arrange to get the laws of the most favorable states applied to other transactions which arose outside those states.
Editorials on class action reform
- Madison County's controversial asbestos litigation system under fire yet again
- Preempro jackpot justice verdicts in Philadelphia
- Federal district court dismisses Netflix suit
- Hans Bader on challenging class-action abuses
- Wal-Mart Settlement Offer: Potentially Pocket Change for Class Member Participants
- "Something intrinsically unusual is occurring in Philadelphia"
- More on the Eastern District of Texas
- "Patent company has big case, no office"
- Why is the Eastern District of Texas home to so many patent trolls?
- Around the web, July 27
- Insurers and Toyota sudden acceleration
- Wal-Mart v. Dukes & A.E.P. v. Connecticut
- $322M verdict for phantom asbestosis
- Back Doctors Ltd. v. Metropolitan Property & Cas. Ins. Co.: CAFA jurisdictional limits
- The need for federal anti-SLAPP law