Can legal sales of prescription opioids constitute a nuisance? Two decisions, based on nearly identical statutes, reach diametrically opposed conclusions.
The plaintiffs say manufacturers broke the law by producing rifles that were compatible with accessories that facilitate rapid firing.
This will fail and more pressing problems will be neglected
The Connecticut Supreme Court rejects an absurdly broad definition of "negligent entrustment" but allows a claim based on "unfair trading practices."
A Colorado jury rejected claims that an indoor cultivation facility had injured the owners of a neighboring horse ranch.
A web developer's First Amendment lawsuit says Sibley, Iowa, officials conspired to silence him.
Lawyers look to cash in for the silliest of reasons.
A likely-fatal blow to to the state's censorious "ag gag" law
Two states attempt to dictate how farmers outside their boundaries treat their animals.
A court says a city can squash your property rights because it thinks vegetables are ugly.
A federal appeals court raises California's unconstitutional ban from the dead.
A group of coffee industry workers sues Everett, Wash. over city's new anti-bikini ordinances.
Legal threats over food marketing appear to be on the rise. But who really benefits?
A handful of food-industry groups say an equally bad federal law takes precedence.
Two lawsuits and action in Congress indicate wasteful, unconstitutional mandates may be on their way out.
Do settlement amounts reflect police culpability in deaths?
A South Carolina Supreme Court decision rejects rules based on economic protectionism.
But the appeals court rejected claims against state and local officials who regulate marijuana businesses.
The court should uphold a lower-court ruling suppressing the unconstitutional (and unconscionable) law.
After an embarrassing correction, the paper mangles the details again.
A story about a teenager who was bullied by the president for creating a website that mocked him was not true, but it was sadly plausible.
Do you love the First Amendment but detest Dr. Oz? Read on.
Google's ad model also targeted by suit, which tries to hold the communications entities responsible for how its users use them.
What happens when a food's link to salmonella is proven false? Nothing.
The billionaire bully chafes at the restrictions imposed by the First Amendment.
Large farms have been stung by two recent setbacks. What's next?
Kellyanne Conway says Trump's critics should be "very careful" about dissing him "in a legal sense."
The episode underscores the author's point about the speech-chilling impact of SLAPPs by thin-skinned rich people.
As an ongoing lawsuit makes clear, the regulations are a joke. How do we fix them?
The case founders on its extravagant definition of negligent entrustment.
Responding to the candidate's lawsuit threat, The New York Times says its story had no effect on a reputation he created for himself.
A pair of orchestrated hit pieces from media outlets has spurred the city to hand out massive fines.
Peter Thiel's funding of speech-chilling privacy litigation is totally misguided, people.
Manufacturers will have to guess which circumstances those are, because the FDA won't say.
The Paypal billionaire, a self-described libertarian, thinks the threat of financial ruin will improve journalism.
Is the foolish campaign against energy drinks fizzling out?
After a dog supposedly alerted to her at a border crossing, she endured six hours of fruitless body cavity searches.
It's set to take effect next week and will cost food companies for no good reason.
The email controversy recapitulates themes from Clinton's handling of health care reform.
The Commission on Presidential Debates and the Federal Elections Commission are both being sued for their roles in keeping third parties out of presidential debates.
The movement to stop calling car crashes "accidents" blurs an important distinction.
Kristine Kirk's family say her husband would not have killed her if he had been properly warned about THC side effects.
McAfee insists he had nothing to do with the death of his former Belize neighbor Gregory Faull, and that "I am not required to co-operate with anyone attempting to extort me."
The two states want to join appeals filed by landowners and sheriffs.
What facts can the plaintiffs discover to substantiate their broad reading of "negligent entrustment"?
Has he changed his mind, or is he trying to have it both ways?
He has turned against the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act but talks like he still supports it.
Do you care about free minds and free markets? Sign up to get the biggest stories from Reason in your inbox every afternoon.
This modal will close in 10
