Time, once again, to take a look at some of the shorter takes on the law — those that elucidate the same high points and low points as our regular features do, except that these stories are just a little too self-contained to justify an entire column on their own. So, herewith, some more compact “highs and lows of the law”:
• Some years ago, a Hindu man in Santa Barbara sued Taco Bell because he had ordered a bean burrito but was mistakenly given a beef burrito instead. His lawsuit, however, not only sought compensation for the injury occasioned by him having been fed the flesh of an animal that Hindus consider sacred. Because Hindus believe in reincarnation, he also sought compensation because this religious transgression might have an impact on him in several future lives.
The man eventually settled with Taco Bell. There was no word on whether that settlement included some kind of perpetual trust fund or other means to compensate all of those future lives.
• From the “Please Check your Camera and Microphone at the Door, Thank You” file, there was a curious story that, at least initially, turned into an ongoing sage. The case grew out of an incident in Montana when agents of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the U.S. Attorney’s Office (which should have known better) signed an agreement allowing CNN to send a camera crew and sound crew along with law enforcement officers who raided an elderly couple’s ranch seeking evidence that they had poisoned bald eagles.
The raid resulted only in a misdemeanor conviction for the couple having mislabeled pesticide on their property. They retaliated by suing both the federal agents and CNN under the federal civil rights law.
CNN, of course, appealed the case, arguing that its conduct was protected by the First Amendment as “news-gathering.” But when the case actually reached the U.S. Supreme Court, the justices ruled unanimously that news organizations have no right under the First Amendment to accompany law enforcement officers on “raids” or other police searches into suspects’ homes.
No wonder they took “COPS” off the air.
Well, anyway, the next thing you know, the courts will rule that the police have to get search warrants before tapping your phone or breaking down your front door looking for evidence.
• There are housing discrimination laws all over this country against people or organizations that refuse to sell or to rent real estate to someone because of their race, religion, national origin, sex, disability, family status, and a host of other characteristics. California even has laws that extends this protection to gay people, and in the 1990s the California Supreme Court interpreted that law to prohibit housing discrimination against unmarried couples — even if the basis for the discrimination was the religious beliefs of the seller or landlord.
But back in 1999, in Bakersfield, California, a developer named Biltmore Properties discovered that there is still one group of people against whom it is perfectly legal to discriminate in the sale or rental of housing: lawyers. It seems that an attorney named Timothy Liebaert wanted to buy a home in a new subdivision. He and his wife put down a deposit and were preparing to move in. But then the developer found out that Mr. Liebaert was a partner with a large law firm in Bakersfield, he decided that the Liebaerts could look elsewhere, thank you.
The justification? Well, according to a letter from the developer’s own lawyer (hmmm — I wonder where he lived?), refusing to sell to lawyers “reduce[s] the frequency of threatened and actual litigation.” Liebaert, unsurprisingly, turned around and slapped the developer with . . . a lawsuit, thereby rendering the logic behind the developer’s actions questionable (because, after all, Biltmore did get sued) or vindicated it (because it demonstrated that lawyers, um, actually do like to sue).
A judge in Kern County, where Bakersfield is located, sided with Biltmore. The judge allowed Liebaert (who was represented by some of his colleagues in his law firm) several opportunities to amend his lawsuit to come up with a “housing discrimination against lawyers” claim that the judge would find was supported by existing law. Liebaert even tried arguing that, by refusing to sell to his wife, Biltmore had discriminated against her because of her “marital status,” which the California Supreme Court had recently recognized as being covered by California’s anti-discrimination law.
In the end, however, the judge dismissed the lawsuit, finding that one’s occupation is not a “personal characteristic” covered by that law, either.
Frank Zotter, Jr. is a Ukiah attorney.
Hence then, the article about judicial follies short cuts was published today ( ) and is available on Ukiah Daily Journal ( Middle East ) The editorial team at PressBee has edited and verified it, and it may have been modified, fully republished, or quoted. You can read and follow the updates of this news or article from its original source.
Read More Details
Finally We wish PressBee provided you with enough information of ( Judicial Follies: Short Cuts )
Also on site :
- 1990 Tearjerker Voted ‘Best Country Song’ of All Time
- TJ Maxx Is Selling a Lookalike of a Popular Anthropologie Doormat Over 3x the Price
- The Cozy One-Pot Dinner I’m Making on Repeat All Winter Long