Westlaw Journal weekly round-up

November 12, 2012

Westlaw Journals Weekly RoundupThe new Westlaw Journals blog brings you litigation headlines in over 30 substantive areas of law. Here are some highlights from the past week:

Legal ResearchThe government has settled a lawsuit for over $1 million with three companies that allegedly sold consumer credit reports to businesses that offer debt relief services to financially strapped customers.  Namely, the government said, the companies bought and resold thousands of prescreened lists of consumers who were between 30 and 90 days late on mortgage payments. According to its press release, the Federal Trade Commission sued the companies as part of its efforts to protect consumers in financial distress.

The federal government has won a dispute with a Svonavec Inc., a Pennsylvania coal company, over the rights to mine coal under a portion of land that has been designated as the sight of a proposed 9/11 memorial.  The United States acquired more than 275 acres in 2009 by eminent domain, including about 6 acres upon which United Airlines Flight 93 crashed during the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.  A Pennsylvania federal judge ruled that Svonavec has not shown it held underground mining rights to the 275.81 acres it owned prior to the government’s acquisition of the surface rights to the land.  Someone won’t be getting coal this holiday season.

A diabetic inmate in Nevada suffered no harm or civil rights violations when he was given expired insulin syringes over four days in 2010, a federal judge in Las Vegas has ruled.  The inmate sued the state and the prisons’s supervisors and nurses in federal court, alleging that he began to experience itchy eyes, headaches and muscle spasms after using the syringes June 28-30 and July 1, 2010.  The suit claimed that a nurse told him the syringes were expired and said, “So use them or don’t; that’s all we have, and we have to use them up,” the order said.   The judge found that the inmate showed he had a serious medical need, but fell short of proving that the medical care sunk to the level of deliberate indifference or was significant enough to cause harm.