In-depth analysis of recent rulings.
December 27, 2006ALM Staff | Law Journal Newsletters |
The latest happenings in this important area.
December 26, 2006ALM Staff | Law Journal Newsletters |The latest rulings for your review.
December 26, 2006ALM Staff | Law Journal Newsletters |Key rulings of interest to you and your practice.
December 26, 2006ALM Staff | Law Journal Newsletters |Because of the statutory constraints the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) faced and the unique characteristics of vernal pools and the species that inhabit them, the FWS appropriately made a critical habitat designation in a manner consistent with the scientific evidence available, although it did not designate which protected areas were occupied or unoccupied by the endangered species.
December 26, 2006ALM Staff | Law Journal Newsletters |In-depth comment on this important practice area.
December 26, 2006ALM Staff | Law Journal Newsletters |In Charnay v. Cobert '- Cal.Rptr.3d '', 2006 WL 3410818 (Cal.App. 2 Dist., 11/28/06) (Perluss, P.J.), the trial court erred by sustaining a demurrer to a former client's suit against the law firm that represented her as she adequately alleged, inter alia, legal malpractice and breach of fiduciary duty.
December 26, 2006ALM Staff | Law Journal Newsletters |Properly administered impact fee programs can operate to streamline California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) review of later development projects. At the same time, impact fee programs that are not implemented in accordance with the original expectations, or that are founded upon unrealistic assumptions, may offer the lead agency and affected applicant little or no real legal relief, and may be a trap for the unwary.
December 26, 2006William W. Abbott and Janell M. BogueIn a recent development that will likely be of interest to companies conducting business in Europe, the American Bar Association has recently urged the U.S. government to sign, ratify and implement the Hague Convention on Choice of Court Agreements (the 'Choice of Court Convention'). The Choice of Court Convention accomplishes many goals that have long been sought by the United States. Most importantly, it provides a mechanism for the recognition of certain judgments rendered by U.S. courts, namely judgments resolving a dispute arising out of a commercial agreement that was submitted pursuant to an exclusive choice of court agreement. (See American Bar Association, Recommendation adopted by the House of Delegates (Aug. 7-8, 2006), at www.abanet.org/intlaw/policy/investment/hcca0806.pdf.)
December 26, 2006Todd S. Fishman and Laura Martin