I think it was the one alluded to in the second site. It may or may not be the same case as the first one. What amazed me was the fact that the first court found in her favour, and I couldn't stop imagining how she went about convincing the court that she had, in fact, lost her 'powers'. Seriously, how would one go about proving that, even assuming she could convince the court that she had them in the first place?

>Was this the case?
>
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judith_Richardson_Haimes
>
>It is mentioned here as well:
>
>http://www.tortdeform.com/archives/2006/09/book_review_a_tort_protectors.html
>
>
>>>http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=597195&p=2
>>>
>>>If she wants to sue, she's got an open-and-shut case.
>>
>>Reminds me of the time a woman (I think in Chicago) sued a hospital because a cat-scan destroyed her psychic powers. Can you imagine the court scene? She's on the stand, her lawyer walks up to her with his hand behind his back, and says, "How many fingers am I holding up behind my back?" She says, "I don't know." The judge says, "Good enough for me. Find for the plaintiff."
>>
>>Actually I don't know how it turned out, but I get a chuckle out of just imagining the courtroom.