The Bright Line Business Law Blog

A Southern California lawyer defending small businesses and their insurance companies searches for certainty in the law.

My Photo

About

Other useful sites

  • Smith, Smith & McFaul
  • Seach California Bar Membership
  • FindLaw
  • Orange County CA Superior Court Home Page
  • Los Angeles County Superior Court
  • Riverside County Superior Court
  • My Wife's Virtual Art Gallery
  • My Wife's "Brick and Mortar" Art Gallery
  • Judicate West
  • Judicial Arbitration and Mediation Services (JAMS)
  • Secretary Of State Portal, Corporations/LLC's
  • Maribeth's Online Gallery

Law Weblogs

  • Overlawyered
  • The Best Orange County Family Law Specialists
  • PointofLaw: opinion on the U.S. litigation system
  • Insurance Defense Blog
  • HealthLawBlog
  • Blog 702
  • The Volokh Conspiracy
  • Mirror of Justice
  • Ernie the Attorney

Legal Writing Resources

  • The Word Detective
  • Acronym Finder
  • Online Thesaurus
  • Brayn Gardner's Legal Writing in Plain English
  • Grammar Guide
  • Phrase Finder
  • Online Dictionary (Merriam-Webster)
Blog powered by Typepad
Subscribe to this blog's feed

stupid lawsuits, laughing at lawyers, funny lawsuits, lawyer humor, goofy lawsuits

stupid lawsuits, laughing at lawyers, funny lawsuits, lawyer humor, goofy lawsuits

please enjoy!

October 01, 2004 in Frivolous lawsuits | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

New does not mean perfect?

Realty Times - Real Estate News and Advice

In California construction defect litigation, homes are expected to remain "perfect" for 10 years. However, this article notes a practice which is highly effective in reducing the severity or eliminating construction defect lawsuits. I recommend it to all builders and subcontractors:

Cardis said builders should survey their buyers 30 days after they complete the purchase, then again at the 60 or 90-day service period, and a third time after they've been in their homes a full year. And he warned against asking yes-no questions, suggesting instead that buyers be given multiple choices or allowed to explain their feelings.

It is very hard to plausibly maintain a construction defect suit when the homeowner has had no complaints at the 30 day, 90 day and 1 year intervals. In addition, minor complaints which can balloon into a CD case can instead get resolved quickly in this follow up period instead of being allowed to fester.

September 30, 2004 in Frivolous lawsuits | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0)

California Proposition 64 Eliminates litigation abuse

California Business and Professions Code Section 17200 currently authorizes frivolous lawsits for imaginary wrongs to extort damages from small businesses including some of our clients.

Now there is an proposed initiative designed to redress that injustice. An analysis follows:

League of Women Voters California. In Depth Analysis of Prop 64. November 2, 2004 Election

If you are eligible, please vote for this initiative.

September 16, 2004 in Frivolous lawsuits | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

My Philosophy-why the "bright line?"

This is the first in a series of discussion of legal topics of interest to insurers and business executives—our firm’s clients.

In representing clients on behalf of Smith, Smith & McFaul I sometimes get carried away and gripe, complain and moan about the status of legal uncertainties faced by my clients. Sometimes the facts are uncertain, sometimes the law is. I intend to comment on cases, statutes and procedures that promote certainty in the law—applaud it when I find it and criticize legal developments that promote uncertainty. It’s intended to be informative and thought provoking.

The “Bright Line” is any legal principle that is so certain that every day citizens and businessmen can plan their activities confident of the legal standards that apply. Certainty in the application of the law allows for predictability and better future planning for businesses. The results are more productivity, more economical legal services and a healthier business environment.

A good example of a “Bright Line” test is a well crafted statute of limitations. For a very long time, California had a ONE YEAR statute of limitations for personal injury actions based on negligence. There are argumetns for shorter and longer ones. Recently, the legislature approved, and the governor has signed, a TWO YEAR STATUTE of limitations. The change has resulted in uncertainty causing confusion to insurers and defendants. Is the statue retroactive? Does it revive actions already expired under the one year statute? No, it doesn't but it took an unnecessary court case to find out. Krupnick v. Duke Energy Morro Bay (2004) 115 Cal.App4th 1026, 9 Cal.Rptr.3d 767.

September 01, 2004 in Frivolous lawsuits | Permalink | Comments (7) | TrackBack (0)

« Previous

Categories

  • Frivolous lawsuits (14)
  • Improving the system (12)
  • Insurance issues (5)
  • Legal Writing-The Crusade for Plain English (3)
  • Science (6)
  • Small Business Issues (5)
See More

Recent Posts

  • These are two beautiful watercolors
  • Sandra Day O'Conner resigns
  • Trolling for clients on the internet
  • "Aye" says the parrot, "Always tell the truth, argh!"
  • Bendectin may be back
  • Small Business Scam
  • Legal Writing: Step 2 Now, Make Your Point
  • CDC backs off Mold Claim
  • That'd be me
  • Common Good: Common Good's Second Annual Gatekeeper Awards

Archives

  • July 2005
  • June 2005
  • April 2005
  • March 2005
  • February 2005
  • January 2005
  • December 2004
  • November 2004
  • October 2004
  • September 2004