Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Statute of Limitations Runs from Time of Correct Diagnosis
The District of Columbia Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment for a plaintiff on her medical malpractice claim against a doctor for a misdiagnosis. Hardi v. Mezzanotte, Nos. 99-CV-1386 and 99-CV-1540, 2003 D.C. App. LEXIS 140 (3/20/03). It held that the trial court did not err in striking the defendants' statute of limitations defense, because the statute of limitations did not begin to run from the time of the misdiagnosis but from the time of the later correct diagnosis. Chief Judge Annice Wagner's opinion was joined by Judges John Steadman and Stephen Glickman.
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
As consumers continue to shift purchasing and consumption habits in the aftermath of the pandemic, manufacturers are increasingly reliant on third-party logistics and warehousing to ensure their products timely reach the market.
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.
In Rockwell v. Despart, the New York Supreme Court, Third Department, recently revisited a recurring question: When may a landowner seek judicial removal of a covenant restricting use of her land?