|
|
|
|
Related Stories
Important Rules of Evidence for Family Law AttorneysNew York Family Law MonthlyMatrimonial and family law attorneys who only try divorce and custody cases know that all issues besides the grounds for divorce are tried before the court without a jury. In such cases, the rules of evidence are often relaxed. While this can make for a more straightforward presentation of evidence, it can also leave family practice lawyers unfamiliar with new or little used rules of evidence.
Considerations of Examiner Appointments in Bankruptcy ActionsThe Bankruptcy StrategistExaminer appointments in Chapter 11 bankruptcy cases are uncommon, and despite Judge Peter J. Walsh’s statement that he had appointed an examiner only two or three times during his career as a bankruptcy judge, he recently ordered the appointment of an examiner in In re DBSI, Inc.
Patent Opinions, Willfulness and InducementThe Intellectual Property StrategistRecent decisions have begun to fill in the gaps left by In re Seagate Technology, LLC. They suggest that a competent opinion is still an effective defense to a willfulness charge, and that a jury may consider a defendant’s failure to obtain an opinion when determining the defendant’s intent for purposes of willfulness and inducement.
Perplexing Problems Under the Uniform Transfers to Minors ActThe Matrimonial StrategistThe Uniform Transfers to Minors Act, like its predecessor, The Uniform Gifts to Minors Act, is a comprehensive statutory scheme designed to allow money and property to be transferred to children easily. However, disputes have crept into family law and related proceedings. Becoming familiar with the UTMA will help you avoid problems in settling or trying cases that involve custodial assets.
Revlon Duties Do Not Prohibit Acceptance of a Compelling, Pre-Emptive BidThe Corporate CounselorIn a much-anticipated decision, the Delaware Supreme Court recently overturned the controversial ruling of the Delaware Court of Chancery in Lyondell Chemical Company v. Ryan, C.A. Here is an analysis of the decision and its aftermath.
LJN's Litigation Newsletters
Top Stories
![]() We're sorry. Your computer must be equipped with a browser capable of rendering HTML 4.01 and running JavaScript. In your browser, you must enable JavaScript. In addition, you should enable style sheets.
|
Headlines
Valuation of Sponsorship Opportunities in SportsValuation of a sponsorship opportunity is much more art than science and it is important that a lawyer involved in the negotiation of a sponsorship agreement understand how the various factors interrelate. While this article focuses on the factors affecting the valuation of a sponsorship opportunity with a NASCAR race team, most of the factors can be applied to sponsorship opportunities in other sports as well.
Can Failure-to-Warn Claims Against Generic Drug Manufacturers Be Preempted?The tension between the salutary purposes of the Hatch-Waxman Act (low-cost drugs widely and quickly available to patients) and the necessity to change label warnings when science or adverse event reports show a newly appreciated risk, presents a Hobson’s choice to generic drug companies, complicated by the FDA’s own interpretation of its CBE regulations as inapplicable to them.
TS Tech’s Impact on Transfer DecisionsIn re TS Tech and, to a lesser extent for patent cases, In re Volkswagen of Am., Inc., have changed the landscape of § 1404(a) cases in the Fifth Circuit. Patent cases that once would not have been transferred out of the Fifth Circuit may now be transferred based on TS Tech.
Legal Issues Swell if Swine Flu SpreadsJust one week into the swine flu outbreak, health authorities in Baltimore detained 117 passengers on a flight from Cancun, Mexico. And Texas, Maryland and New York officials closed schools. Although the flu strain isn't an official pandemic yet, state and local officials are already flexing legal muscles — many for the first time.
Did the Supreme Court Finally Rein in Punitive Damages?Insurers should encourage policyholders to hold firm against the plaintiff’s bar’s threats of excessive punitive damages jury verdicts by pointing to the Exxon Shipping Co. et al. v. Baker decision and the recent trend of decreased outlier jury verdicts.
|
| |
|
|
