Democrats hope to press the "affordability" issue in this year's midterm election season, but there'…
CFIF on X CFIF on YouTube
Inflation: Comparing Trump and Biden...

Democrats hope to press the "affordability" issue in this year's midterm election season, but there's one potentially glaring problem for them, as illustrated by our friends at Unleash Prosperity...

[caption id="" align="alignleft" width="668"] Biden Versus Trump on Inflation[/caption]

 …[more]

August 17, 2026 • 04:40 PM
Home Jester's Courtroom A Class Action Lawsuit Sours
A Class Action Lawsuit Sours Print
Thursday, January 24 2008

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit upheld the dismissal of a class action lawsuit which sought, among other things, to require sellers of milk to put labels on their containers warning consumers that some may experience adverse symptoms if they drink milk and are lactose intolerant.

According to court documents, the class of plaintiffs, defined as consisting of individuals who consumed milk before becoming aware that they were lactose intolerant, suggested two specific warnings. The first stated, "Warning - If you experience diarrhea or stomach cramps after consuming milk, you may be lactose intolerant. Check with your physician." The second proposed, "Warning - Lactose intolerant individuals may experience bloating, diarrhea, or other gastrointestinal discomfort from consuming milk. Check with your physician."

In affirming the lower court's dismissal, the appellate court concurred that the manufacturers had no duty to warn because the health consequences of being lactose intolerant are well known. "We hold as a matter of law that a reasonable consumer today would be well aware that milk may adversely affect some people," the court concluded, adding that "the risk that milk will cause temporary gas and stomach discomfort to lactose-intolerant individuals who do not yet know of their condition cannot support a failure-to-warn tort claim under D.C. tort law."

Judge Brett M. Kavanaugh, author of the court's opinion, cautioned that "a bout of gas or indigestion does not justify a race to the courthouse. Indeed, were the rule otherwise, a variety of food manufacturers as well as stadiums, bars, restaurants, convenience stores, and hot dog stands throughout the country would be liable to millions of would-be plaintiffs every day. Plaintiffs' novel claim falls short of what D.C. law requires."

—Source: Law.com

Notable Quote   
 
"The Supreme Court on Monday handed an initial win to the Trump administration in its effort to implement an executive order aimed at limiting who can receive mail-in ballots ahead of the 2026 midterm elections.At issue are provisions that seek to create a federal list of eligible voters and order the U.S. Postal Service to deliver ballots only to eligible voters.The justices, divided 6-3, granted…[more]
 
 
— Lawrence Hurley, NBC News
 
Liberty Poll   

Given proper zoning and appropriate regulation, do you support or oppose the construction and operation of a data center near you?