[L.N. Smithee]

I don't know if the suit is frivilous or not as I don't know anything about it. I do know that the courts whack you for court cost and attorney fees if a case is thrown out because the court considers it frivilous.

Here's the difference: Saundra and her partners were trying to make sure that Planned Parenthood told all the facts about abortion in its materials -- including the breast cancer link -- so that the women they counsel are FULLY informed about all the risks involved.

Some Shylock in New York, on the other hand, is blaming McDonald's for his obese teen clients' unhealthy girth when court papers show that it was the fat kids' parents who took them to Mickey D's.

[DaGman]

Supersizing at McDonalds 4-5 times a week alone doesn't seem to be enough calories to get a 14 yr old to 380 lbs. To me it looks like it would be hard to show a preponderance. I'm interested to see if it gets thrown out.

On the other hand, there's the tobacco suits that became a cause for those that felt the tobacco companies were lying (which they were) and selling a harmful product. Of course the flip side is those that felt those suits were (are) frivilous.

[templar]

Some Shylock in New York, ...

Yeah, and it should be ruled frivolous with legal fees awarded to Mcdonalds. But, what do you think the chances of collecting those fees would be? The attorneys are representing the plaintif and wouldn't responsible for the fees. The plaintif would be.

Can't get blood from a turnip ... or money from a lowlife.