SINGLETON CASE GAINING SHANKSOMENTUM…?
On Sunday I wrote about the case of police officer Jimmy Singleton and pondered why Wal-Mart felt compelled to add its two- (one-?) cent’s worth in the form of a friend-of-the-court brief opposing Singleton’s disability payments?
Singleton didn’t work for Wal-Mart and his injury in the line of duty didn’t happen on Wal-Mart property.
Like David Nassar, I wondered why Wal-Mart didn’t learn a lesson from the Debra Shank case.
You might think that Wal-Mart CEO Lee Scott learned a lesson from the beating he took a few months ago in the media over the Deborah Shank case, but you’d be wrong. Wal-Mart now seems determined to keep disability benefits from all Americans, not merely its own employees. To make matters worse, the company has chosen to start its campaign with an injured police officer.
Dissing police officers, particularly injured police officers is a risky business. So what’s up with this?
Officer Singleton is now retired, but has spent the past 4 years waging a nasty court battle to receive disability benefits.
So where does Wal-Mart come in? A lawyer representing both Wal-Mart and Tyson, Arkansas’ two largest private employers, “tendered friend-of-the-court briefs with the state Supreme Court this month arguing his claim should be denied.”
Singleton’s Lawyer Kenneth Harper tells us that “the ‘big boys’ are interested in the case because they fear the Court of Appeals’ rulings will set a precedent that will allow more people to collect on disability claims.”
Is Wal-Mart afraid that in the current recession, more people might be emboldened by the fight of Jim Shank for what was his, and curtail the lavish lifestyle of its rich and not-so-famous majority stock holders?
And what does Keith Olbermann think about Singleton’s plight?
in an Ideal legal system, Precedents would have no value in following court cases. This would keep the law simpler, so there would be less prestige to being a lawyer. Cases would go faster and cheaper, so there would be less incentive for lawyers to argue ludicrous cases.
Shalom Ryan,
Eliminating precedent would essentially result in requiring judges to reinvent the wheel every time a case came before them.
Precedent is what makes our legal system manageable.
B’shalom,
Jeff