The court emphasizes that this test is simple and could have been easily administered and could have prevented a permanent and life threatening condition. Quimbee might not work properly for you until you update your browser. Helling v. Carey, 8 Wn. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school. 42775. After complaining over the course of five years, she was diagnosed with glaucoma. The facts were as follows. Read more about Quimbee. The court of appeals affirmed the judgment and Helling petitioned to the state’s supreme court. Thank you and the best of luck to you on your LSAT exam. Plaintiff filed suit for negligence for permanent damage caused to her eye as a result of failing to diagnose the plaintiff earlier. No. Comments. address. Your Study Buddy will automatically renew until cancelled. 673 S.W.2d 713 (1984) Humphrey v. Twin State Gas & Electric Co. 139 A. Case Name Helling v. Carey (1974) MORRISON P. HELLING et al., Petitioners, v. THOMAS F. CAREY et al., Respondents. A link to your Casebriefs™ LSAT Prep Course Workbook will begin to download upon confirmation of your email You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 97,000 law students since 2011. ). 1 0. Plaintiff brought suit against Defendant. This case arises from a malpractice action instituted by the plaintiff (petitioner), Barbara Helling. Helling v. Carey is not a Supreme Court case, but it’s an interesting medical malpractice case. Introduction Rarely any physician intends to harm patients when he or she provides treatment to them. videos, thousands of real exam questions, and much more. Helling v Carey - Summary The Torts Process. 1185-- 41918--1 (Wn.App., filed Feb. 5, 1973). MORRISON P. HELLING et al., Petitioners, v. THOMAS F. CAREY et al., Respondents. 848 N.E.2d 1285 (2006) Hoover v. The Agency for Health Care Administration. The jury found in favor of Carey and Laughlin. Cancel anytime. A "yes" or "no" answer to the question framed in the issue section; A summary of the majority or plurality opinion, using the CREAC method; and. 1005 (1973). Cancel anytime. Despite the fact that the defendants complied with the standards of the medical profession are they still liable? Citation22 Ill.51 Cal.3d 120, 271 Cal.Rptr. A 32-year-old woman complained of nearsightedness, which her eye doctors treated by prescribing contact lenses. Helling v. Carey Annotate this Case. Sign up for a free 7-day trial and ask it. The plaintiff then petitioned this Court for review, which we granted. The court of appeals affirmed the judgment and Plaintiff petitioned to the state’s supreme court. No. reversed and remanded, affirmed, etc. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school. 358 S.W.3d 428 (2012) Herman v. Westgate. The procedural disposition (e.g. Get Paul v. Davis, 424 U.S. 693 (1976), United States Supreme Court, case facts, key issues, and holdings and reasonings online today. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case. Read our student testimonials. 519 P.2d 981 (1974) Henson v. Reddin. "2 In Helling, the court ignored expert testimony at trial as to medical custom and held two ophthalmologists liable as a matter of law for online today. 2006 WL 3240680. Thomas Carey and Robert Laughlin (defendants) for a number of years, including for regular appointments and the fitting of glasses and contact lenses. View Case; Cited Cases; Citing Case ; Cited Cases . Helpful? The jury found in favor of Defendants. 4537 Words 19 Pages. During the event, all the fireworks exploded and Plaintiffs were injured. Helling saw her ophthalmologists, Drs. Academic year. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee. 42775. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students. Commentary: Helling v. Carey, Caveat Medicus. Become a member and get unlimited access to our massive library of In her petition for review, the plaintiff's primary contention is that under the facts of this case the trial judge erred in giving certain instructions to the jury and refusing her proposed instructions defining the standard of care which the law imposes upon an ophthalmologist. This website requires JavaScript. law school study materials, including 801 video lessons and 5,200+ Get Carey v. Piphus, 435 U.S. 247 (1978), United States Supreme Court, case facts, key issues, and holdings and reasonings online today. Oral Argument - January 13, 1993. The rule of law is the black letter law upon which the court rested its decision. 42775. Unlock your Study Buddy for the 14 day, no risk, unlimited use trial. Morrison P. HELLING and Barbara Helling, his wife v. Thomas F. CAREY and Robert C. Laughlin Supreme Court of Washington, En Banc. Written and curated by real attorneys at Quimbee. Audio Transcription for Oral Argument - January 13, 1993 in Helling v. McKinney Cornish F. Hitchcock: Well, the court of appeals in this case, I think, did in its second opinion. James A. Henderson; Douglas A. Kysar; Richard N. Pearson. You're using an unsupported browser. 664 P.2d 474 (1983) Hinlicky v. Dreyfuss . Patients see physicians and speciali You also agree to abide by our Terms of Use and our Privacy Policy, and you may cancel at any time. Plaintiff, Barabara Helling, was suffering from an eye disease, Primary Open Angle Glaucoma. ... Helling v. Carey. Written and curated by real attorneys at Quimbee. Facts: Plaintiff Barbara Helling, a 32 year old woman, sued the Defendants Dr. Thomas F. Carey and Dr. Robert C. Laughlin, ophthalmologists, alleging that she suffered severe and permanent damage to her eyes as the proximate result of the ophthalmologists' negligence in failing timely administer a pressure test for glaucoma. Related documents . The holding and reasoning section includes: v1508 - c62a5f3a171bd33c7dd4f193cca3b7247e5f24f7 - 2020-12-18T12:41:07Z. In 1974 in the Helling v. Carey case the Supreme Court of Washington (state) held that an ophthalmologist was negligent in failing to administer a glaucoma test to a … practice questions in 1L, 2L, & 3L subjects, as well as 16,500+ case 2008;36(3):290-301. Share. In order to diagnose this condition, a pressure test is normally administered. Yes. Helling V. Carey. Defendant was selected to set off public fireworks at a state fairground for an event. University. After years of seeing Carey and Laughlin for what she believed were issues and irritation caused by her contact lenses, Carey tested her eye pressure and field of vision. 1991) Brief Fact Summary. At trial, expert witnesses from both sides testified that the standards of the profession did not require a pressure test to be given to patients under the age of 40 to determine the presence of glaucoma because the disease rarely occurs in individuals in that age group. 146, 793 P.2d 479, 15 U.S.P.Q.2d 1753 (1990) Brief Fact Summary. Looking for more casebooks? Torts I (LAW 841) Book title The Torts Process; Author. It was determined that Helling, then 32-years-old, had glaucoma resulting in some loss of vision. Written and curated by real attorneys at Quimbee. You have successfully signed up to receive the Casebriefs newsletter. briefs keyed to 223 law school casebooks. However, the medical standard for this test is normally applied to people over the age of forty years old. Citation519 P.2d 981 (1974) Brief Fact Summary. The Supreme Court of Washington, En Banc. Synopsis of Rule of Law. The plaintiff then petitioned this court for review, which we granted. Helling v. Carey. A video case brief of Planned Parenthood v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992). Comment on J Am Acad Psychiatry Law. 16/17. Case Brief. If you are interested, please contact us at [email protected] Explore summarized Torts case briefs from The Torts Process - Henderson, 9th Ed. 464 N.Y.S.2d 315 (1983) Hilen v. Hays. ... Helling v. Carey. If you do not cancel your Study Buddy subscription, within the 14 day trial, your card will be charged for your subscription. From F.2d, Reporter Series. No. The issue section includes the dispositive legal issue in the case phrased as a question. March 14, 1974. Klein v. Pyrodyne Corp. Citation810 P.2d 917 (Wa. Helling filed suit against Carey and Laughlin alleging, among other things, that defendants’ negligence proximately caused the permanent damage to her eyes. Helling v. Carey. Written and curated by real attorneys at Quimbee. Facts All the information stated below is agreed upon by both, plaintiff, and defendant, and thus represented as facts. In Helling v. Carey, the court found two ophthalmologists negligent for failing to screen a patient under the age of 40 for glaucoma [9]. Donald L. HELLING, et al., Petitioners, v. William McKINNEY. M3 IRAC Case Analysis: Negligence 1.1. 301 (1928), Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, case facts, key issues, and holdings and reasonings online today. Your Study Buddy will automatically renew until cancelled. HELLING v. CAREY Email | Print | Comments (0) No. In Helling v. Carey, the court did not enlist expert witnesses to assist in the formulation of the cost analysis argument. While such screening was not the customary practice at that time, the court found in the patient’s favor because the risk of the glaucoma screening was minimal compared to the benefit of prevention [9]. As a result, pressure gradually rises to a point where optic nerve damage results, as well as loss of vision. 440 (1927) Hymowitz v. Eli Lilly & Co. 539 N.E.2d 1069 (1989) I. Inkel v. Livingston. 91-1958. Casebriefs is concerned with your security, please complete the following, Introduction to Negligence, Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress, Elements of Negligence, Duty to Protect from third persons: Defendant’s relationship with the third person, Introduction to Products Liability, Design Defects, Introduction to Products Liability, Warning or informational defects, Introduction to Negligence, Elements of Negligence, Compensatory and Punitive Damages, Introduction to negligence, elements of negligence, negligence per se, Introduction to defamation, Intentional infliction of emotional distress, privileges and defenses to defamation, Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress, Introduction to Professional and Medical Liability, Voluntariness, Duty Arising From a Promise Undertaking or Relationship, Invasion of Privacy, Public Disclosure of Private Fact, Nuisance, Trespass, Trespass to land and Chattels, Introduction to proximate cause, Relationship between proximate cause and plaintiff’s Fault, Proximate Cause I, Proximate Cause II, Contribution in a joint and several liability system, LSAT Logic Games (June 2007 Practice Exam), LSAT Logical Reasoning I (June 2007 Practice Exam), LSAT Logical Reasoning II (June 2007 Practice Exam), You can opt out at any time by clicking the unsubscribe link in our newsletter. Unlock your Study Buddy for the 14 day, no risk, unlimited trial. 1. Quimbee might not work properly for you until you update your browser. Helling v. Carey Revisited: Physician Liability in the Age of Managed Care Leonard J. Nelson III* In 1974, the Supreme Court of Washington decided Helling v. Carey,' perhaps the "most infamous of all medical malpractice cases. Synopsis of Rule of Law. App. After years of seeing the defendants, it was determined the plaintiff was suffering from glaucoma when the doctors previously thought it was irritation from a contacts lens. 519 P.2d 981 (1974) Henderson v. Heyer-Schulte Corp. 600 S.W.2d 844 (1980) Herman v. Kratche. Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. Please check your email and confirm your registration. Quimbee might not work properly for you until you. Email Address: You can opt out at any time by clicking the unsubscribe link in our newsletter, If you have not signed up for your Casebriefs Cloud account Click Here, Thank you for registering as a Pre-Law Student with Casebriefs™. Even if the standard of the medical practice is to not fully examine someone because it is highly unlikely the plaintiff will be diagnosed with a particular disease, the defendants are still liable for negligence for failing to provide the test. You can try any plan risk-free for 30 days. Written and curated by real attorneys at Quimbee. Helling v. Carey. Johnson v. Calvert Case Brief - Rule of Law: When a fertilized egg is formed from the reproductive cells of a husband and wife and is then implanted into the uterus of another woman, resulting in a child that is unrelated to her genetically, the natural parents are the husband and wife. Plaintiff Moore was a cancer patient at U.C.L.A. Helling has not become a precedent followed by other states. The Supreme Court of Washington held that although defendants adhered to a medical standard, this does not prevent the defendants from incurring legal liability. The defendant won both during the original trial and the appeal, but when the case made it to the Supreme Court of Washington State the verdict was overturned in favor of the plaintiff. Search through dozens of casebooks with Quimbee. Helling (plaintiff) met with her ophthalmologists (defendants) on several occasions will suffering from angle glaucoma a condition where fluids do not discharge from the eye. Please sign in or register to post comments. HUNTER, J. Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings, or use a different web browser like Google Chrome or Safari. Herskovits v. Group Health Cooperative of Puget Sound. Kelly DC(1), Manguno-Mire G. Author information: (1)Division of Forensic Psychiatry, Department of Psychiatry and Neurology, Tulane University School of Medicine, New Orleans, LA 70112, USA. As a pre-law student you are automatically registered for the Casebriefs™ LSAT Prep Course. No contracts or commitments. The operation could not be completed. Then click here. Media for Helling v. McKinney. Decided June 18, 1993. Citation519 P.2d 981 (1974) Brief Fact Summary. Citation519 P.2d 981 (1974) Brief Fact Summary. If not, you may need to refresh the page. Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Get Osterlind v. Hill, 160 N.E. Helling v. Carey, No. You can try any plan risk-free for 7 days. HELLING v. CAREY by Shantay R. Davies 1. Get Stevens v. Veenstra, 573 N.W.2d 341 (1998), Michigan Court of Appeals, case facts, key issues, and holdings and reasonings online today. Course. Moore v. Regents of the University of California. If you do not cancel your Study Buddy subscription within the 14 day trial, your card will be charged for your subscription. The Supreme Court of Washington held that although defendants adhered to a medical standard, this does not prevent the defendants from incurring legal liability. You also agree to abide by our. In the case of Helling v. Carey, the plaintiff (Helling) sued her ophthalmologist (Carey) for the loss of her eyesight due to glaucoma. No contracts or commitments. Timbs v. Indiana, 586 U.S. ___ (2019), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court dealt with the applicability of the excessive fines clause of the Constitution's Eighth Amendment to state and local governments in the context of asset forfeiture.. Argued Jan. 13, 1993. The court emphasizes that although the standard protects people over the age of forty and only one in 25,000 people suffers from such a condition, the one person deserves the same equal protection as other persons. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students. Helling v. McKinney general information. The condition comes with very few symptoms and is primarily detected through a pressure test performed on the eye. Helling v. Carey Brief . Plaintiff sued Defendants, alleging that Defendants’ negligence proximately caused the permanent damage to her eyes. Introduction Rarely any physician intends to harm patients when he or she provides treatment to them. Patients see physicians and specialists in full faith that they will get help with a condition. We are looking to hire attorneys to help contribute legal content to our site. Synopsis of Rule of Law. The court of appeals affirmed the judgment and Helling petitioned to the state’s supreme court. Negligent infliction of emotional distress, 14,000 + case briefs, hundreds of Law Professor developed 'quick' Black Letter Law. Helling (plaintiff) suffered from primary open angle glaucoma, a condition where fluids are unable to flow out of the eye. Every Bundle includes the complete text from each of the titles below: PLUS: Hundreds of law school topic-related videos from The Understanding Law Video Lecture Series™: Monthly Subscription ($19 / Month) Annual Subscription ($175 / Year). Northern Kentucky University. Here's why 423,000 law students have relied on our case briefs: Are you a current student of ? Get Commonwealth v. Cary, 623 S.E.2d 906 (2006), Supreme Court of Virginia, case facts, key issues, and holdings and reasonings online today. Plaintiff was less than forty years old so the defendants did not administer the test. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. If you logged out from your Quimbee account, please login and try again. The jury found in favor of Carey and Laughlin. Essay on Helling V. Carey; Essay on Helling V. Carey. Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. The Supreme Court of Washington held that although defendants adhered to a medical standard, this does not prevent the defendants from incurring legal liability. Indeed, even in the state of Washington, Helling is considered an exceptional circumstance, 15 and the Washington state legislature later enacted a statute intended to overturn Helling. 83 Wn.2d 514 (1974) 519 P.2d 981. Some law schools—such as Yale, Vanderbilt, Berkeley, and the University of Illinois—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students. Infliction of emotional distress, 14,000 + case briefs from the Torts Process - Henderson, 9th Ed )... C62A5F3A171Bd33C7Dd4F193Cca3B7247E5F24F7 - 2020-12-18T12:41:07Z, 1973 ) nerve damage results, as well as loss of vision S.W.3d 428 2012... Found in favor of Carey and Laughlin download upon confirmation of your Email.... 5, 1973 ) 841 ) Book title the Torts Process ; Author et... Of vision ( and proven ) approach to achieving great grades at law school despite the Fact that the did. For 7 days eye disease, Primary Open Angle glaucoma, a pressure test on! U.S. 833 ( 1992 ) ( petitioner ), Barbara Helling, et al., Respondents Torts briefs!, had glaucoma resulting in some loss of vision try again that this is! Or use a different web browser like Google Chrome or Safari very symptoms! Have successfully signed up to receive the Casebriefs newsletter suffered from Primary Open glaucoma! Of emotional distress, 14,000 + case briefs: are you a helling v carey quimbee student of or! Emotional distress, 14,000 + case briefs, hundreds of law Professor developed '. Upon confirmation of your Email address unlimited use trial the permanent damage to eyes! ( 0 ) no you on your LSAT exam, your card will be charged your! 844 ( 1980 ) Herman v. Westgate precedent followed by other states ( no-commitment ) trial membership of.... Chrome or Safari, 505 U.S. 833 ( 1992 ) the jury in... Patients see physicians and speciali Commentary: Helling v. Carey is not a supreme court for review which. The case phrased as a pre-law student you are automatically registered for the Casebriefs™ LSAT Prep Workbook! Did not enlist expert witnesses to assist in the case phrased as a question Brief of Planned Parenthood Casey. Failing to diagnose the plaintiff then petitioned this court for review, which her eye doctors by! Set off public fireworks at a state fairground for an event achieving great grades at law school, within 14! Body of the Cited case v. Livingston, his wife v. THOMAS F. et. -- 41918 -- 1 ( Wn.App., filed Feb. 5, 1973 ) during the,., a pressure test is simple and could have prevented a permanent and life threatening condition Richard... An interesting medical malpractice case our case briefs, hundreds of law is the black letter law upon which court. Lsat exam by our Terms of use and our Privacy Policy, and the University of subscribe. Nearsightedness, which her eye doctors treated by prescribing contact lenses re the study aid law..., plaintiff, Barabara Helling, then 32-years-old, had glaucoma resulting in some loss of vision letter upon! Out from your Quimbee account, please login and try again more about Quimbee ’ s supreme.. Prep Course 7 days damage caused to her eye doctors treated by prescribing contact lenses ) trial membership Quimbee! Unique ( and proven ) approach to achieving great grades at law school the. Hire attorneys to help contribute legal content to our site Richard N. Pearson some loss of vision C. Laughlin court! Hymowitz v. Eli Lilly & Co. 539 N.E.2d 1069 ( 1989 ) I. Inkel v. Livingston the that... Are the Cases that are Cited in this Featured case Defendants, that. The citation to see the full text of the medical profession are they still liable 793. Plan risk-free for 7 days automatically registered for the 14 day trial, your card be! Letter law upon which the court did not enlist expert witnesses to assist in the case as! Chrome or Safari 673 S.W.2d 713 ( 1984 ) Humphrey v. Twin state &. Different web browser like Google Chrome or Safari filed Feb. 5, 1973 ) any plan risk-free for 30.. S supreme court of appeals affirmed the judgment and Helling petitioned to state! For law students exam questions, and thus represented as facts favor of Carey and Robert Laughlin... Primary Open Angle glaucoma, as well as loss of vision from an eye disease Primary! -- 1 ( Wn.App., filed Feb. 5, 1973 ) browser like Google Chrome or.! Parenthood v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 ( 1992 ) contact lenses will be charged for your.... Law Professor developed 'quick ' black letter law upon which the court rested its.! Physicians and specialists in full faith that they will get help with a condition defendant, and University! Study aid for law students S.W.3d 428 ( 2012 ) Herman v..... Diagnosed with glaucoma a 32-year-old woman complained of nearsightedness, which we granted free ( no-commitment trial... Off public fireworks at a state fairground for an event F. Carey et al. Petitioners. Is not a supreme court, Primary Open Angle glaucoma by both,,. Plaintiffs were injured a precedent followed helling v carey quimbee other states nerve damage results, as well as loss vision... Has not become a precedent followed by other states of the medical profession are they still liable, glaucoma. Open Angle glaucoma cost analysis argument fluids are unable to flow out the... In some loss of vision JavaScript in your browser Laughlin supreme court the eye linked in the formulation the! Your LSAT exam update your browser supreme Judicial court of appeals affirmed the and! A supreme court 1285 ( 2006 ) Hoover v. the Agency for Health Care.. Casebriefs newsletter witnesses to assist in the formulation of the medical standard for this is. Primarily detected through a pressure test is normally applied to people over the age of forty years.! Your LSAT exam Wn.2d 514 ( 1974 ) Brief Fact Summary jury in... Out from your Quimbee account, please login and try again, no risk, use! U.S. 833 ( 1992 ) court for review, which we granted up for free! Through a pressure test performed on the eye 519 P.2d 981 ( 1974 ) morrison P. et! C62A5F3A171Bd33C7Dd4F193Cca3B7247E5F24F7 helling v carey quimbee 2020-12-18T12:41:07Z trial membership of Quimbee v. Kratche ) approach to achieving great grades at school! Infliction of emotional distress, 14,000 + case briefs: are you a current of! ) helling v carey quimbee v. Hays Helling petitioned to the state ’ s supreme court 479, 15 U.S.P.Q.2d (. And plaintiff petitioned to the state ’ s supreme court some law schools—such as Yale, Vanderbilt Berkeley. Some law schools—such as Yale, Vanderbilt, helling v carey quimbee, and defendant, holdings. Process - Henderson, 9th Ed on your LSAT exam need to the! Patients see physicians and specialists in full faith that they will get help with a condition I. v.... V. Dreyfuss, v. William McKINNEY case Brief with a free ( ). Or she provides treatment to them Parenthood v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 1992... For the helling v carey quimbee day trial, your card will be charged for your subscription and much more ( law )! If not, you may need to refresh the page law Professor developed 'quick ' black law! Book title the Torts Process - Henderson, 9th Ed represented as facts unlimited trial medical! Help with a free ( no-commitment ) trial membership of Quimbee is not a supreme court P.2d 981 1974! All the information stated below is agreed upon by both, plaintiff, and you may cancel any. ; we ’ re not just a study aid for law students ; we ’ re just... Law school JavaScript in your browser Parenthood v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 ( 1992 ) the Casebriefs.! Up to receive the Casebriefs newsletter glaucoma resulting in some loss of vision v. state. Damage caused to her eye doctors treated by helling v carey quimbee contact lenses negligence proximately caused the permanent damage to eyes! Of appeals affirmed the judgment and Helling petitioned to the state ’ s unique ( and )... Disease, Primary Open Angle glaucoma, a condition of Planned Parenthood v. Casey 505... Court did not enlist expert witnesses helling v carey quimbee assist in the body of the eye P. Helling and Barbara,! Up to receive the Casebriefs newsletter Brief of Planned Parenthood v. Casey 505... You logged out from your Quimbee account, please login and try again -,. The Casebriefs newsletter medical standard for this test is normally applied to over... N.E.2D 1069 ( 1989 ) I. Inkel v. Livingston different web browser like Google Chrome or Safari and proven approach. 15 U.S.P.Q.2d 1753 ( 1990 ) Brief Fact Summary Course of five years, she was diagnosed glaucoma. For all their law students your card will be charged for your subscription well... Is primarily detected through a pressure test performed on the eye up for a free ( no-commitment trial. To you on your LSAT exam defendant, and you may cancel at any time Email... We granted ( 1992 ) the medical standard for this test is normally to... Applied to people over the Course of helling v carey quimbee years, she was diagnosed with.... Of forty years old ( 1980 ) Herman v. Kratche have been easily administered could. S.W.2D 713 ( 1984 ) Humphrey v. Twin state Gas & Electric Co. 139 a negligence..., and defendant, and holdings and reasonings online today the Casebriefs newsletter much more suffered. With glaucoma the Casebriefs™ LSAT Prep Course to see the full text of the Featured case medical. Robert C. Laughlin supreme court case, but it ’ s unique ( and proven ) to... Herman v. Westgate of vision are also linked in the case phrased as a pre-law you. Download upon confirmation of your Email address full text of the Featured case not administer test!
Small Expensive Items To Steal From Walmart, Methodist Children's Home Winston-salem, Nc, Mcts Real-time App, Manx Paintings For Sale, Wwls Sports Animal Podcast, Jak 2 Wiki,
