True, as reported in one of our state-wide papers. Seems a young man in one our state's larger cities, hereinafter referred to as the plaintiff, is trying to sue a video store in said city, after purchasing an adult video whose description overexaggerated what he actually viewed. The description stated that an actress, one "Busty Belle", was the video's star, but the plaintiff, stopwatch evidently in hand, found that the star was on camera a mere 8 or 9 minutes. Plaintiff is asking damages of $29.95, the cost of the video, $55.79 for medical costs for an asthma attack suffered as a result of stress and strain of being ripped off, and finally, $50,000 for suffering. The county district court originally dismissed the case, but the case has made its to the state supreme court, which has revived the suit. Seems the plaintiff, who also was acting as his own attorney, wasn't given enough notice of the district court's intention to dismiss the case and that plaintiff, deserves a chance to challenge the dismissal.
(From the "Rest" of RHF)