Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
The New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division rendered a decision in the appeal of Lewis v. Harris, 378 N.J.Super. 168, 875 A.2d. 259 (App.Div.2005) that the “statutory limitation of marriage to members of the opposite sex does not violate the New Jersey Constitution.” Although disappointing, the 2-1 decision was not unexpected and, because there is a dissenting opinion, under New Jersey Rules of Court there is an automatic right of appeal to the New Jersey Supreme Court. The notice of appeal has been filed, and as of this writing the parties awaited a briefing schedule.
Background
The plaintiffs, seven same-sex couples, appealed from a lower court decision on Nov. 5, 2003, Lewis vs. Harris, WL 23191114 (N.J. Super. L. 2003), which rejected the plaintiffs' claims that the State's refusal to issue them marriage licenses violated their rights to privacy, due process, and equal protection under the New Jersey Constitution, granting summary judgment to the State.
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.
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.
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
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?