Senator Frank Lasee (R-De Pere) introduced Senate Bill 286 on October 2. This bill proposes to change Wisconsin’s long standing, and flawed, “dog bite” statute. Under current law, Wis. Stat. § 174.02(1)(b) mandates double damages for dogs that cause injury to people, domestic animals, or property if they have previously done so. Current law does not take into account the severity or type of the damage done. For instance, a dog could cause minor property damage, which would count as the first bite, and then cause physical damage to an individual on the second bite. The owner would be liable for double damages the same as an owner whose dog caused disfiguring personal injuries on both occasions despite the fact that the first owner had no notice their dog was capable of causing such damage. SB 286 is an attempt to remedy this unfairness.

The largest change in this bill is to the double damages provisions. Now an owner may only be liable for double damages for injuries caused by their dog only if a dog bites a person with “sufficient force to break the skin and cause permanent physical scarring, or disfigurement” if the owner knew the dog had previously done so. This change ensures that dog owners will not unfairly have double damages triggered by minor damage to personal property.

The bill also increases the monetary forfeiture a court can level against owners for damage caused by a dog. Under current law for first time damage to “a person, domestic property, deer, game birds or the nests of eggs of game birds” the maximum forfeiture is $500. Under the bill it is raised to $2,500. Under current law the maximum penalty for subsequent acts is $1,000. Under the bill it is raised to $5,000.

SB 286 also changes who can request a court to order that a dog be killed. Under current law only the state or a municipality may ask a court to order a dog be killed if the dog caused serious injury to a person nor domestic amical on at least two separate occasions. Under this bill in addition to the state and municipality being able to make this request, a person injured by the dog or whose child was injured by the dog, or whose domestic animal was injured by the dog may also make this request.

SB 286 received a public hearing in the Committee on Insurance, Housing, and Trade on October 6.

WCJC is in support of SB 286.

Senator Chuck Grassley (R-IA), Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman, and Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX), Senate Majority Whip, are calling for more transparency in the litigation finance industry. Litigation finance firms fund plaintiffs to pursue lawsuits, taking a cut of the recovery if plaintiffs win or settle with the defendants. Critics of the industry say that firms fund frivolous lawsuits, drive up costs for all litigation, and exercise undue influence in the strategy and decision making for those they fund. Advocates for litigation financing say it helps plaintiffs, who would not otherwise be able to pursue lawsuits, have their day in court.

As a part of their push for transparency, Senators Grassley and Cornyn sent letters to three major industry firms, Burford Capital, Bentham IMF, and Juridica Investments Ltd., requesting a complete list of cases each company has funded in the last five years, how much money they made, and whether other parties in the litigation were informed of the funding arrangements. The firms have yet to respond to the requests.

Warner Music Group (Warner) claims the rights to “Happy Birthday to You” – the most recognized English language song in the world. Warner has aggressively asserted rights to anyone who performs a public rendition of the song, from celebrities to parents audacious enough to post videos of their children’s birthday parties online, demanding licensing fees and threatening to sue if not paid. However, according to a University of Pittsburgh Law Librarian, Warner may not have a valid patent for the song.

A class action lawsuit was filed against Warner challenging their copyright to the song, from which Warner receives approximately $2 million in revenue a year. The case was cracked open after evidence of a book, the fourth edition of “The Everyday Song Book,” published in 1922, has an un-copyrighted version of “Happy Birthday to You” in it. This would predate Warner’s 1933 copyright. Evidence of this book was uncovered in Warner’s own files which were handed over during discovery. Attorneys representing the plaintiffs reached out to University of Pittsburgh Law Professor Michael Madison on a hunch that the University had a copy of the book. A law librarian found a copy in the university library’s storage facility. The librarian quickly sent copies of the relevant pages to the plaintiffs, who then motioned for summary judgment.

Three Wisconsin residents have filed a lawsuit against Delta, United, Southwest, and American airlines claiming they violated anti-trust laws. The plaintiffs are currently attempting to get their class certified.

In their complaint, the plaintiffs allege (in their only count) these airlines conspired to restrain trade and commerce in violation of the Sherman Act (15 U.S.C. §§ 1, 3) by artificially lowering the amount of airline flights thereby reducing competition within the industry. They explain that since 2008 the four major airlines have cut flights, raised fares, and have gained control of 80% of the market place. Fares have continuously increased despite a 34% drop in fuel prices, which are airlines single largest expense.

This lawsuit comes on the heels of the U.S. Department of Justice opening an investigation into “possible unlawful coordination” among major airlines’ plans to expand in a way to reduce competition and keep rates high. Several major airlines have announced they would limit growth in order to keep fares high to protect profit margins. However these statements were made in the context of preventing airline stock prices from declining further than they have in recent months.

Multiple similar lawsuits have been filed in major cities across the U.S. including New York, Chicago, San Francisco, Dallas, and Washington. The defendant airlines have released statements saying the lawsuits have no merit.

Read the complaint.

Scalia, writing for the Court, stated that “[EPA] gave cost no thought at all, because it considered cost irrelevant to its initial decision to regulate,” he continued, writing, “It is unreasonable to read an instruction to an administrative agency to determine whether ‘regulation is appropriate and necessary’ as an invitation to ignore cost.” With that the Court found the Obama Administration’s most monumental environmental regulation to date unreasonable and remained to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals.

The regulation in question was the EPA’s Mercury and Air Toxics Standards (MATS). MATS required coal-burning power plants to reduce emissions of mercury, arsenic, and lead by installing control technologies or retiring plants. The rule was finalized in December 2012. While reducing the amount of hazardous emissions may seem admirable, the direct benefits of the regulation were valued at $4 million to $6 million, while the annual cost to industry would be approximately $9.6 billion. EPA contested the direct benefit of the program saying that, fully implemented, the MATS would yield between $37 billion and $90 billion in health benefits. EPA did not contest the cost of the program.

Opponents of the rule argued the costs imposed on business and society versus the limited benefits were unreasonable and that the practical implication of the MATS standard would be to put many coal-burning plants out of business. Environmentalists, and the EPA, have pointed out the health benefits to the program which they argue would protect vulnerable populations, such as pregnant women.

The practical effects this ruling may be limited. Because the rule has been implemented for two years just under 70% of coal burning power plants are already in compliance with the regulation. Furthermore, SCOTUS did not vacate the rule, only remanded it, therefore MATS will stay in effect while the D.C. Circuit reconsiders the case.

Furthermore, initial discussions make it seem unlikely that this case will have a broader effect on other EPA regulations. Some legal commentators contend that Justice Scalia seemed to cabin his analysis within the confines of the MATS program. As evidence of this, Justice Scalia took several pages drawing distinctions between the National Ambient Air Quality Standard, EPA’s largest Clean Air regulatory regime, and MATS making it unlikely that the rationale from this ruling can easily be applied more broadly throughout the Clean Air Act. Time will tell if these preliminary analyses correct.

Read the full opinion.