Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
Concert’s called uniquely awful Four rock fans who claim to represent the interests of 15,000 told a court in Chicago that when they paid $50-plus each to hear Creed last December, they assumed they would be attending a performance-”including the lyrics.” But the proposed class action says lead singer Scott Stapp was so high that he “was unable to sing the lyrics of a single Creed song” and did things like disappearing from the stage for 10 minutes at a time. The fans are represented by Daniel J. Voelker of Chicago’s Freeborn & Peters. Before the “constructive nonperformance” suit was filed, Creed sent a mass letter to fans acknowledging their evening may have fallen short. The letter reassured everyone that Stapp is “taking a much needed break” but didn’t mention a refund or a second show. “We hope,” it said, “that you can take some solace in the fact that you definitely experienced the most unique of all Creed shows and may have become part of the unusual world of rock ‘n’ roll history!” Or not. Who’s qualified? The California Law Review is coming to the rescue of all who are sick of federal judicial confirmation battles. The January 2004 issue will offer “A Tournament of Judges?”-apparently with a question mark just in case someone gets cold feet and wants to say it was all a joke. The article, by University of California Berkeley School of Law professor Stephen J. Choi with the help of Georgetown University’s G. Motu Gulati, is a not-so-modest proposal for calculating the abilities of appellate court judges. The number of opinions a judge writes is factored in, with a premium for opinions that are frequently cited. The authors insist there’s even a way to identify judicial independence. “The frequency with which the judge is in opposition to another judge selected by the same President (or a President from the same political party) serves as one measure,” they say. “Judges who systematically are more willing to take an opposite position to politically like-minded judges are, we speculate, more unbiased.” Choi and Gulati don’t propose an amendment to the Constitution. They submit that the plan can be self-enforcing. The press can help out by publicizing merit-based scores. Then, if a president or a member of Congress starts stumping for a candidate based on something besides the score, the authors note, the political ideology will be “transparent.” Whose remains? The famous feud from Kentucky may have to be renamed, from the Hatfields and the McCoys to the McCoys and the Hatfields. Both sides claim victory in the court of Pike County District Judge Charles E. Lowe Jr. At issue was access to a cemetery that contains the remains of six McCoys, including three who were tied to pawpaw trees and executed in 1882. The land is owned by John Vance, a Hatfield heir, who put up “no trespassing” signs. Under the judge’s order, McCoy descendants will be allowed to visit the graves. Vance said he never had any difficulty with that-he just wanted to halt commercial exploitation of his property by tourists. “The McCoys win,” crowed Joseph Justice, a Pikeville lawyer and McCoy descendant who represented cousins Bo McCoy of Waycross, Ga., and Ron McCoy of Durham, N.C. Whose invention? The motion picture Academy of Arts and Sciences says it’ll be a while before it comments on the Frazier lens, which won a 1997 Oscar for technical achievement. The lens system is made by Panavision and rented-not sold-for $2,000 a day. Recently, the Australian nature photographer James Frazier and Panavision sued a German lens maker in Los Angeles, alleging its product too closely resembled the Oscar winner. Now Judge Gary Feess says the original was a fake. Declaring the patent invalid and unenforceable, he ruled that the patent examiner was hoodwinked.

This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.

To view this content, please continue to their sites.

Not a Lexis Advance® Subscriber?
Subscribe Now

Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now

Why am I seeing this?

LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.

For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]

Reprints & Licensing
Mentioned in a Law.com story?

License our industry-leading legal content to extend your thought leadership and build your brand.


ALM Legal Publication Newsletters

Sign Up Today and Never Miss Another Story.

As part of your digital membership, you can sign up for an unlimited number of a wide range of complimentary newsletters. Visit your My Account page to make your selections. Get the timely legal news and critical analysis you cannot afford to miss. Tailored just for you. In your inbox. Every day.

Copyright © 2021 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All Rights Reserved.