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
ADVERTISEMENT