Posts Tagged ‘ DUI ’
Riddle: When is your Sugar Daddy your Daddy, too?
February 6th, 2012. By AbiK
“Sugar Daddy – noun; a well-to-do usually older man who supports or spends lavishly on a mistress, girlfriend, or boyfriend.”
As per Merriam-Webster. And as in, “She’s on the lookout for a new sugar daddy.” That’s the definition—so see if the shoe fits as you read on, then try to answer the riddle: When is your Sugar Daddy your Daddy, too?…
Aside from the natural questions that arise from such an arrangement (e.g., Is Goodman technically romantically involved with his child? Can he be charged with incest should he now have “sexual relations” with Hutchins? Would his biological children be aunts or uncles to any child he might have with Hutchins? If Carroll Goodman (John’s ex-wife) has a birthday party for her son or daughter—will she feel an odd obligation to invite their new sister?), one can’t help but raise a suspicious eyebrow as to the motive here. Why—WHY?—would a man of seemingly healthy mind—allegations of cocaine use aside—want to adopt his 42-year old girlfriend? And, of course, that leads us to the backstory…
In 2010, Goodman was in a car accident for which was he charged with DUI—or more specifically, DUI manslaughter, vehicular homicide and leaving the scene of an accident. The manslaughter and homicide parts come from the nature of the accident—Goodman allegedly blew through a stop sign and ran into another car. Scott Patrick Wilson was in that other car and he tragically lost his life as a result. (Wilson’s parents have filed a civil suit).
Goodman goes to trial on March 6 for those criminal charges—and he stands to get up to 30 years in prison if he’s convicted. The civil trial is set for March 27.
But a funny thing happened on the way to the trial: Goodman adopted a daughter!
Yes—Five…months…before…his…trial. Raise that eyebrow and turn your glance to the money trail.
It’s a little tricky, but Goodman had apparently set up a trust for his two minor children. If the Wilson’s were to win their civil suit, they would not be able to touch the money in the trust. But Goodman could lose a substantial amount of money he has that’s not in trust—and if so, he’d be unable to touch the money that’s in trust for his kids because that money is reportedly tied up until the kids are 35 years of age.
Ahh…but if he adopts a 42-year old—since she’s over 35—and she goes on the trust as well, then she can access one-third of that money which would mean HE can access that money, too! “Genius!” he must’ve thought. (Wonder if he thought about how much he might be pissing off his real kids once they get a drift of the situation…)
And that’s what has the legal world abuzz right now—is this a surefire move to ‘beat the system’? Will it work? Will the adoption hold up in court as legit?
And does it even matter given that the court of public opinion has basically already lambasted Goodman and his apparently integrity-lacking girlfriend? If it was a ‘genious’ legal move—which has yet to be seen—it was a disastrous PR move—a young man dead as a result of alleged DUI, two young children pulled into some weird financial and familial threesome…
It’s a riddle for sure. But the answer to “When is your Sugar Daddy your Daddy, too?” is…
Clearly, when it’s John Goodman.
Week Adjourned: 8.12.11
August 12th, 2011. By LucyC
Top Class Actions
Latest Book Club? Apple, and some the publishing industry’s biggest names got hit with a nationwide antitrust class-action lawsuit this week, over allegations that they conspired to fix prices in electronic books (e-books)–at least that’s the short version.
According to published info, Apple Inc., HarperCollins Publishers, a subsidiary of News Corporation, Hachette Book Group, Macmillan Publishers, Penguin Group Inc., a subsidiary of Pearson PLC, and Simon & Schuster Inc., a subsidiary of CBS, colluded to increase prices for popular e-book titles to boost profits and force e-book rival Amazon to abandon its pro-consumer discount pricing. Nice!
Here’s the skinny: the publishers believed that Amazon’s enormously popular Kindle e-reader device and the company’s discounted pricing for e-books would increase the adoption of e-books, and feared Amazon’s discounted pricing structure would permanently set consumer expectations for lower prices, even for other e-reader devices.
So, according to the lawsuit, the five publishing houses forced Amazon to abandon its discount pricing and adhere to a new agency model, in which publishers set prices and extinguished competition so that retailers such as Amazon could no longer offer lower prices for e-books. That’s anti-free market for sure!
If Amazon attempted to sell e-books below the publisher-set levels, the publishers would simply deny Amazon access to the title, the lawsuit states. The defendant publishers control 85 percent of the most popular fiction and non-fiction titles. Lawyers for the plaintiffs note that while Amazon derived profit from the sale of its Kindle and related accessories, likely allowing the company to discount e-books, Apple was steadfast in maintaining the 70/30 revenue split it demanded with its App Store.
Still with me? Read on…
While free market forces would dictate that e-books would be cheaper than the hard-copy counterparts, considering lower production and distribution costs, the complaint shows that as a result of the agency model and alleged collusion, many e-books are more expensive than their hard-copy counterparts.
As a result of the pricing conspiracy, prices of e-books have exploded, jumping as much as 50 percent. When an e-book version of a best-seller costs close to—or even more than—its hard-copy counterpart, it doesn’t take a forensic economist to see that this is evidence of market manipulation, lawyers for the plaintiffs note. For example, “The Kite Runner” costs $12.99 as an e-book and only $8.82 as a paperback.
The lawsuit goes on to claim that because no publisher could unilaterally raise prices without losing sales, they coordinated their activities, with the help of Apple, in an effort to slow the growth of Amazon’s e-book market and to increase their profit margin on each e-book sold.
The lawsuit claims Apple and the publishers are in violation of a variety of federal and state antitrust laws, the Sherman Act, the Cartwright Act, and the Unfair Competition Act.
Once approved, the lawsuit would represent any purchaser of an e-book published by a major publisher after the adoption of the agency model by that publisher.
Does this affect you?
Top Settlements
Pharma Sales Reps Score One—in Overtime. Well now—here’s a great big slice of sunshine for all those hardworking pharmaceutical representatives. Schering Plough’s reps have won a complete victory in Federal Court in a nationwide collective lawsuit alleging unpaid overtime pay at the mandatory rate of time and one half. The federal class action was filed on behalf of all pharma reps who worked for SP during the last three years, anywhere in the United States.
No numbers have been made public as yet—but the press release states “The amount to be distributed to the class will be determined by the Court, but will likely include double damages for the violation.”
Apparently, the US Department of Labor recognizes that pharmaceutical reps are not exempt from overtime pay, and that the precedent for the class claim was set in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, which found earlier this year that Novartis pharma reps were entitled to overtime compensation on the same grounds alleged against Schering Plough.
The US Supreme Court refused to hear the drug companies’ appeals. Saving tax payer dollars—always a good thing. The Second Circuit issued a similar ruling in a case brought by pharma reps against Schering Plough, as have district courts in Connecticut, Illinois, Florida and Texas in cases against Boehringer Ingelheim, Abbott, and Auxilum Pharmaceuticals. However, this ruling is the first of its kind as it found that pharma sales reps are not exempt under any of the parts of the exemption. Schering had to prove all the parts of the exemption, but it lost on all points.
Congratulations!
$5 Million Drunk Driving Accident Judgment. I wonder how many people are affected by drunk drivers? This guy certainly was. Twenty-two year old Dwight Grant—he was 22 in 2007 at the time of the incident—sustained brain damage as a result of an accident caused by a drunk driver. He was recently awarded $5 million in settlement of his personal injury lawsuit.
Apparently, he was a passenger in stopped vehicle when the vehicle was struck by Mathew Lyons who was being chased by the police. After hitting the car Grant was in, Lyons fled the scene.
Grant suffered fractures to his face and skull, which resulted in his sustaining brain damage, specifically, damage to his frontal lobe. This damage, Grant alleged, caused him a seizure disorder that now requires constant care.
The parties ultimately agreed to a $5 million final judgment.
OK. That’s it for this week. See you at the Bar—I’m taking a taxi.
Bradshaw & Bryant: Stopping DUI One Taxi Ride at a Time
October 25th, 2010. By BrendaC
This new column at LawyersandSettlements.com looks at a side of lawyers you don’t hear too much about—the side that gives back…pays it forward..and shares the love. We’ve found quite a number of attorneys who log non-billable hours helping others—simply because they believe it’s the right thing to do. Their stories are inspiring, and hey, who knew lawyers were so…good? If you’ve got a story to share about an attorney who’s doing the right thing, let us know—we’d love to let others know, too. Today, we talk with Mike Bryant of Bradshaw & Bryant…
Attorney Mike Bryant on Giving Back: “It’s Just the Right Thing to Do.”
Attorneys often see, close up and personal, the tragedy that results from drunk driving. Five years ago, a Minnesota firm decided it would pick up the tab for people who needed a ride home from a bar during the first two weeks of the New Year. ”Yes, it is expensive,” says Mike Bryant, an engaging, warm kind of guy and a partner in the four-lawyer personal injury firm of Bradshaw & Bryant.
Minnesota Attorney Mike Bryant
“We pay for a couple of hundred rides during that period, but I like the idea of doing it,” says Bryant. “It’s just the right thing to do.”
The public has become increasing unsympathetic to people who drink and drive, and with good reason. “It creates a mess,” says Bryant, speaking about drunk drivers. “And it also affects their families, maybe their ability to earn a living, and if they are involved in an accident where people are injured or killed, it’s a disaster.”
The firm has handled many cases involving alcohol and catastrophic injury. “We have seen the effects that criminal charges have on people charged with driving under the influence (DUI), and we have also seen people who have been injured as a result of accidents involving alcohol,” says Bryant. “It is horrible all around.”
“I’ve had people phone me up and thank me, and taxi drivers like it too. They say they get better tips,” adds Bryant.
For the first year, Bryant’s firm paid for New Year’s Eve plus the next two weeks of cab rides, but the cab company said most people take care not to drink and drive on that particular night of the year because they know the police are watching.
“The problem is after New Year’s Eve,” says Bryant. “There are a lot of office parties, people having “get- togethers,” and that’s when they make mistakes. So we now pay for the two weeks after New Year’s Eve.”
Bryant says the free taxi rides at New Year’s have been a local tradition in the community. “There was another company that did it, but they stopped. We decided to jump in. We do it in conjunction with the radio station and the cab company, but we foot the bill,” says Bryant.
Interestingly, Bryant says the statistics show that Thanksgiving is actually when police find the most drunk drivers on the road. The firm is thinking about adding a few extra days during that time of year.
Mike Bryant is a partner with Bradshaw & Bryant. He is a graduate of the William Mitchell College of Law, St. Paul, Minnesota. He has been named by his peers as one of Minnesota’s top 40 personal injury lawyers four times in five years.
Take the Wheel, I have to Shave! and other Tortelicious gems…
March 9th, 2010. By LucyC
Welcome to Totally Tortelicious—a review of some of the more bizarre legal items making news. Goodness knows there’s no shortage of them. 
This one was a real close shave (and a very bad pun). A young woman in Florida, who was driving through the Keys to meet her boyfriend, decided she need to shave her bikini line en-route. I mean who has time to pull over these days? Seriously. 
Not surprisingly, she caused a car crash.
Wait—it get’s weirder. (What is it about Florida?)
The 37-year old handed the wheel of the car to her ex husband—who was not in the driver’s seat—both figuratively and literally. After piling into some poor guy who had slowed down to make a turn, she keeps her foot on the gas—clearly focused on her destination—and drove another half mile down the road where she stopped and swapped seats with her ex-husband so it looked like he was the one who had been driving.
My question is why didn’t she just get her ex-husband to drive her all the way there? As it turns out, she should not have been driving in the first place. The day before the accident, she had been convicted and sentenced to nine months of probation for DUI and driving with a suspended license. Her license was revoked for five years and she was ordered to get her car impounded.
You know, you couldn’t make this stuff up, even if you wanted to.
Talk about getting off to a roaring start. According to New England police, newlywed 22-year-old Marissa Read the rest of this entry »
If the FDA Wore a Uniform
February 25th, 2010. By Hunter West
You gotta love the good ol’ FDA (US Food and Drug Administration) for its renewed stance on oversight on things such as drug advertising. Four months into the Obama Administration, the FDA gets a new leader—Margaret Gamburg—and all of a sudden things start happening.
Among other crackings of the whip, the FDA issued draft guidelines designed to clarify what is appropriate in drug ads. You know, things like upping the music volume when all those nasty, ‘adverse reaction’ bits appear. Or the use of distracting images and visuals to take the focus away from what you are hearing.
The renewed focus on what consumers are seeing in medicinal TV ads—which seem to take center sponsor stage on the major network television newscasts each night—stems from a few well-placed cat calls from John Dingell and Bart Stupak. Back in 2008 the two congressmen openly questioned if drug advertising properly presented product benefits and risks.
Among other complaints, Stupak criticized Pfizer for using the inventor of an artificial heart, Robert Read the rest of this entry »
Popular Categories
Archive by Category
- Accidents (RSS)
- Airlines (RSS)
- Asbestos Mesothelioma (RSS)
- Automotive (RSS)
- Celebrity (RSS)
- Complaints/Comments (RSS)
- Consumer Fraud (RSS)
- Court of Public Opinion (RSS)
- Criminal Law (RSS)
- Defective Products (RSS)
- DePuy ASR Hip Recall (RSS)
- Discrimination (RSS)
- Drugs/Medical (RSS)
- Elder Care Abuse (RSS)
- Employment (RSS)
- Environment (RSS)
- Financial (RSS)
- Food Illness (RSS)
- Human/Civil Rights (RSS)
- Insecurities (RSS)
- Insurance (RSS)
- Intellectual Property (RSS)
- Internet/E-commerce (RSS)
- Lawyers (RSS)
- Lawyers Giving Back (RSS)
- Lex Levity (RSS)
- Personal Injury (RSS)
- Pleading Ignorance (RSS)
- Real Estate (RSS)
- Securities (RSS)
- Settlement (RSS)
- Tort Reform (RSS)
- Totally Tortelicious (RSS)
- Veterans (RSS)
- Week Adjourned (RSS)
- Whistleblower (RSS)
Loading ...
