meta_pixel
Tapesearch Logo
Log in
Opening Arguments

OA201: Follow Up Friday!

Opening Arguments

Opening Arguments Media LLC

Law, Opinion, Politics, News, Liberal, Legal, Supremecourt, Harvard, Atheist

4.33.7K Ratings

🗓️ 17 August 2018

⏱️ 75 minutes

🧾️ Download transcript

Summary

Today's Rapid Response Friday is actually a Follow Up Friday!  We revisit four stories from recent episodes and go into more depth on each one, particularly in light of recent developments. We begin with our most recent story regarding reporter's privilege in Episode 200.  What's the other side of the argument?  Find out why friend of the show Randall Eliason thinks that reporter's ought not to have the right to keep their sources confidential! After that, we move back one more episode to Episode 199 and tackle some important listener questions about asbestos.  Along the way, we discuss the difference between strict liability and negligence and delve into theories of market share liability. Our main segment covers the unsurprising fact that Masterpiece Cakeshop is back in the news.  What does this mean?  How has the Supreme Court's decision changed the landscape for religious exemptions to laws?  Listen and find out! After that, we go back to Yodel Mountain and check in with the conclusion of the Manafort trial.  Phew! And if all that wasn't enough, we end with an all new Thomas (and Yvette) Take The Bar Exam #89 involving the appropriate damages for breach of contract. If you'd like to play along, just retweet our episode on Twitter or share it on Facebook along with your guess and the #TTTBE hashtag.  We'll release the answer on next Tuesday's episode along with our favorite entry! Recent Appearances None!  If you'd like to have either of us as a guest on your show, drop us an email at openarguments@gmail.com. Show Notes & Links
  1. We discussed reporter's privilege in Episode 200; for the other side, check out this 2007 article by Randall Eliason on the BALCO scandal or this law review article in the American University Law Review.
  2. Of course, we discussed asbestos in Episode 199, but we first broke down the law of negligence way back in Episode 29.  We cite to the Restatement (Second) of Torts § 520 and Sindell v. Abbott Labs, 607 P.2d 924 (1980).
  3. Click here to read the new Masterpiece Cakeshop complaint.
Support us on Patreon at:  patreon.com/law Follow us on Twitter:  @Openargs Facebook:  https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ Don't forget the OA Facebook Community! For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki And email us at openarguments@gmail.com

Transcript

Click on a timestamp to play from that location

0:00.0

We have Reese the Verde already.

0:04.5

We all just kind of looked at each other and nodded.

0:06.6

We find the defended guilty of charges.

0:09.4

Wait 105?

0:17.9

Yeah.

0:18.8

In your broth.

0:19.8

Your honor, I am checked.

0:21.3

You would.

0:22.3

Bastard.

0:23.3

Hey!

0:24.3

Quiet!

0:25.3

Whether it's racist or stardry or stardry, there is no basis for imposing some draconian

0:35.2

policy with regard to bail, nunch, potouc.

0:37.7

Your honor, the defense is now just making up worse.

0:41.9

We can't make the trial.

0:46.1

Oh, look how cute there's like a judge in everything.

0:50.0

In jury people.

0:51.0

So proud!

0:52.0

Ladies!

0:54.0

Welcome to opening arguments.

0:56.6

The podcast that pairs an inquisitive interviewer with a real-life lawyer.

1:00.2

This podcast is sponsored by the Law Offices of P.A.T.R.S. LLC for Entertainment purposes,

...

Please login to see the full transcript.

Disclaimer: The podcast and artwork embedded on this page are from Opening Arguments Media LLC, and are the property of its owner and not affiliated with or endorsed by Tapesearch.

Generated transcripts are the property of Opening Arguments Media LLC and are distributed freely under the Fair Use doctrine. Transcripts generated by Tapesearch are not guaranteed to be accurate.

Copyright © Tapesearch 2026.