{"id":50322,"date":"2016-09-30T11:27:00","date_gmt":"2016-09-30T16:27:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/content.findlaw-admin.com\/ability-legal\/supreme\/legal-commentary\/anthony-sebok-archive-2.html"},"modified":"2016-09-30T11:27:00","modified_gmt":"2016-09-30T16:27:00","slug":"anthony-sebok-archive-2","status":"publish","type":"supreme","link":"https:\/\/supreme.findlaw.com\/legal-commentary\/anthony-sebok-archive-2.html","title":{"rendered":"Anthony Sebok Archive"},"content":{"rendered":"\n
\n \n
\n \n\n\n
\n

Legal Commentary: Anthony Sebok Archive<\/h1>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n
<\/td>\n

Archive<\/a><\/h4><\/td>\n <\/tr>\n<\/table>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\u00a0Columns by Anthony Sebok – Page 2<\/span><\/td>\n\u00a0Most Recent<\/a> | Page 4<\/a> | Page 3<\/a> | Page 2<\/a> | Page 1<\/a>\u00a0\u00a0<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n\n
<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/table>\n\n\n\n\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\n\n

WHY TORT PLAINTIFFS BLUFF WHEN THEY CLAIM DAMAGES,\nAND WHY JURIES SHOULD GET TO HEAR WHAT SIMILAR PLAINTIFFS RECEIVED<\/a>\n\n
\nFindLaw columnist, author, and Brooklyn law professor Tony Sebok discusses why a recent Firestone settlement, like many others, is far lower than the amount of damages that were sought in the plaintiffs’ complaint. While we have gotten used to plaintiffs’ bluffing, Sebok explains, there’s a good reason it happens in our system — and not, for example, in Germany’s, where plaintiffs’ damages demands tend to match their damages awards.\n\n
\n<\/span>\nMonday, Aug. 27, 2001<\/span>\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n

THE FIGHT OVER THE PATIENTS’ BILL OF RIGHTS: WHY HATRED OF TRIAL LAWYERS PLAYS A LARGE ROLE<\/a>\n\n
\nFindLaw columnist, author, and Brooklyn law professor Anthony Sebok contrasts the House and Senate versions of the proposed Patients’ Bill of Rights, isolating the significant similarities and differences between the two.\u00a0 Sebok contends some of the salient differences may matter more to plaintiffs and plaintiffs’ lawyers than to patients’ well-being.\n\n
\n<\/span>\nMonday, Aug. 13, 2001<\/span>\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n

HOW GERMANY VIEWS U.S. TORT LAW:\n DUTIES, DAMAGES, DUMB LUCK, AND THE DIFFERENCES IN THE\n\t\t\t TWO COUNTRIES’ SYSTEMS<\/a>\n\n
\nFindLaw columnist, Brooklyn law professor, and author Anthony Sebok discusses the German and U.S. tort systems from a comparative perspective. Sebok explains why German lawyers and media view our tort system with a mix of envy, horror, and fascination, and why our tort law seems to them a natural outgrowth of our political culture.\n\n
\n<\/span>\nMonday, Jul. 23, 2001<\/span>\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n

LITIGATING A GERMAN TORT DISASTER IN THE U.S.: THE DIFFERENCE PUNITIVE DAMAGES MAKE<\/a>\n\n
\nFindLaw columnist, author, and Brooklyn law professor Anthony Sebok discusses the bid by German plaintiffs to move litigation over the worst rail disaster in German history to the U.S. — in part so punitive damages will be available. \n\n
\n<\/span>\nThursday, Jun. 14, 2001<\/span>\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n

MONEY FOR NOTHING: WHY TOBACCO COMPANIES MUST PAY EVEN IF THEY WIN IN COURT<\/a>\n\n
\nFindLaw columnist and Brooklyn law professor Anthony Sebok explores and explains the curious recent agreement in a huge Florida class action, under which tobacco companies will pay even if they win their appeal. \n\n
\n<\/span>\nWednesday, May. 23, 2001<\/span>\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n

ENDGAME?: HOW THE TOBACCO LITIGATION MAY FINALLY END FOR \n GOOD, IN JUDGE WEINSTEIN’S NEW YORK COURTROOM<\/a>\n\n
\nFindLaw columnist, Brooklyn law professor and author Anthony Sebok discusses \n\nthe complex and fascinating strategic goings-on relating to the cases against \n\nBig Tobacco currently pending in the Brooklyn, New York courtroom of the \n\nbrilliant maverick federal district judge Jack Weinstein. Weinstein, Sebok \n\nargues, is angling for a national settlement of all claims against Big \n\nTobacco but getting there may be harder than it seems — especially given \n\nthat the Second Circuit Court of Appeals has rejected civil RICO claims \n\nagainst Big Tobacco that Judge Weinstein thought should go forward. For \n\nexample, getting to settlement on smokers’ remaining claims, Sebok suggests, \n\nmay involve using a trial on a third party insurer claim by a health plan \n\nagainst Big Tobacco to leverage a global bargain.
\n<\/span>\nMonday, Apr. 23, 2001<\/span>\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n

THE HOROWITZ SLAVERY AD CONTROVERSY, AND THE PROBLEM WITH CONCEPTUALIZING HUMAN RIGHTS VIOLATIONS AS PROPERTY-BASED<\/a>\n\n
\nFindLaw columnist, Brooklyn law professor, and author Anthony Sebok discusses \n\nthe recent controversy in which college campus newspapers divided over \n\nwhether to run an advertisement by neo-conservative David Horowitz opposing \n\nreparations for African-Americans’ slavery. Sebok agrees that Horowitz’ ad \n\n— which suggests, among other things, that African-Americans benefited from \n\nslavery because they live in America, not Africa — is offensive. However, \n\nSebok points out that Horowitz’s premises have something in common with those \n\nof the reparations movement: Both, Sebok notes, conceptualize human rights \n\nviolations as property-based and that, Sebok contends, may be deeply \n\nmistaken.
\n<\/span>\nMonday, Mar. 26, 2001<\/span>\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n

IBM AND THE HOLOCAUST: THE BOOK, THE SUIT AND WHERE WE GO FROM HERE<\/a>\n\n
\nFindLaw columnist, Brooklyn law professor and author Anthony J. Sebok comments on the recent suit against IBM, which is based upon claims that the company aided the Holocaust, and on the contemporaneously-published recent book that makes similar allegations. Sebok discusses the claims, moral and legal, made in both the suit and book, and argues that if the book is \n\naccurate, the provable allegations against IBM may, in the end, boil down to a claim of blindness by the company to immoral misuses of its data processing \n\ntechnology. \n\n
\n<\/span>\nMonday, Mar. 12, 2001<\/span>\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n

VENTURE CAPITALISTS FOR LITIGATION? – PART ONE<\/a>\n\n
\nIn Part One of a two-part series on the possibility of venture capitalists \n\nfor litigation, FindLaw columnist, Brooklyn law professor, and author Anthony \n\nSebok discusses why we don’t trade shares in lawsuits, and explores the \n\nalternatives for financing lawsuits that do exist. Sebok explains why some \n\nbelieve the ethical rule and legal concept (“champerty”) that forbid lawyers \n\nfrom buying and selling interests in litigation are antiquated, and he notes \n\nthat allowing shares in lawsuits to be sold may simply level the playing \n\nfield for poor plaintiffs who sue rich defendants.\n\n
\n<\/span>\nMonday, Feb. 12, 2001<\/span>\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n

VENTURE CAPITALISM FOR LAWSUITS? (PART TWO): WHY CHAMPERTY STILL MATTERS<\/a>\n\n
\nIn Part Two of a two-part series on venture capitalism for lawsuits, FindLaw \n\ncolumnist, Brooklyn law professor, and author Anthony J. Sebok discusses a \n\nrecent Florida case of a family battle arising from a loan that a sister gave \n\nher brother to fund his lawsuit. This case, Sebok explains, raises broader \n\nissues about the wisdom of the legal concept of “champerty,” which limits the \n\nextent to which third parties can provide financing for others’ lawsuits.\n\n
\n<\/span>\nMonday, Feb. 26, 2001<\/span>\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n
\u00a0Most Recent<\/a> | Page 4<\/a> | Page 3<\/a> | Page 2<\/a> | Page 1<\/a>\u00a0\u00a0<\/td>\n\n<\/tr>\n
—<\/td>\n\n<\/tr>\n\n<\/table>\n\n<\/div>\n
\n \n Was this helpful?<\/span>\n \n Yes<\/span>\n \n \n \n <\/path>\n <\/g>\n \n \n <\/rect>\n <\/clipPath>\n <\/defs>\n <\/svg>\n <\/i>\n <\/button>\n \n No<\/span>\n \n \n \n \n <\/g>\n \n \n \n <\/clipPath>\n <\/defs>\n <\/svg>\n <\/i>\n <\/button>\n <\/div>\n <\/span>\n