Cat paws & baby formula

March 25, 2009
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
From IL reporter Michael Hoskins:

Every so often, court rulings offer hidden treasurers that tickle the mind with intrigue rather than simple legalese and legal theory. Take Wednesday's two examples from the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals. Neither appeal stems from Indiana, but attorneys and readers in general can appreciate the decisions and the humor, mystery, and just fun-natured elements contained within.

It all comes down to “cat paws” and 81,454 cans of powered baby formula.

The first case comes from the Eastern District of Wisconsin, in the appeal of grocery wholesaler Kaloti Wholesale. Judge Richard Posner is the author. But the fun comes with the full title: United States of America, Plaintiff, v. Approximately 81,454 Cans of Baby Formula, Defendant. In case you aren't sure, "defendant" is appropriately attached clarifying any confusion about who or what’s being sued here. The case itself involves a February 2007 warehouse raid that uncovered the many thousands of cans of powered baby formula, which agents believed were stolen from retailers. Labels with the "use by" date were stripped off or altered. The government filed a civil forfeiture suit that's still pending in District Court, but the appellant asked the judge for permission to sell the baby formula on grounds that its "use by" dates were approaching - 80 had already expired, and the rest are slated for expiration by year's end.

Judge Lynn Adelman denied the motion on the ground that the sale might endanger any babies who ate it, and this appeal soon followed. Judge Posner and his panel affirmed that decision.

A second 7th Circuit decision today comes out of the Central District of Illinois in Vincent E. Staub v. Proctor Hospital, an Illinois corporation. This is a military-leave suit filed under the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Act, with Staub claiming the hospital wrongly fired him as an angiography technologist. He alleged the hospital discriminated against him based on his Army reservist role, not the insubordination, shirking, and attitude problems cited in his termination.

Authored by Judge Evans, the opinion begins:

"One would guess that the chances are pretty slim that the work of a 17th century French poet would find its way into a Chicago courtroom in 2009. But that’s the situation in this case as we try to make sense out of what has been dubbed the “cat’s paw” theory. The term derives from the fable “The Monkey and the Cat" penned by Jean de La Fontaine (1621-1695). In the tale, a clever-and rather unscrupulous-monkey persuades an unsuspecting feline to snatch chestnuts from a fire. The cat burns her paw in the process while the monkey profits, gulping down the chestnuts one by one. As understood today, a cat’s paw is a “tool” or “one used by another to accomplish his purposes.” Webster’s Third New International Dictionary (1976). More on this a little later."

We won’t trouble you here with a synopsis of the whole opinion - you can read all about the legal issues and theory in the 21 pages. But here’s a spoiler for the ending: The panel reverses and remands the case with instructions for judgment in favor of Proctor Hospital.

These are two favorites we have for the week, but if you’re so inclined, pass along any other fun reads that you’ve noticed.
ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
  1. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  2. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  3. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  4. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

  5. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

ADVERTISEMENT