Account

Sign in to access your account and subscription

Register

Litigation

  • Recent rulings on top cases.

    August 26, 2010ALM Staff | Law Journal Newsletters |
  • Important information you need to know.

    August 26, 2010ALM Staff | Law Journal Newsletters |
  • The National Quality Forum, a nonprofit organization that aspires to set priorities and goals for improvement in health care in the United States, established the concept of "Never Events," which consists of a list of serious complications that should never occur in a safe hospital.

    August 26, 2010John Ratkowitz and Robert Sanfilippo
  • This article presents some historical context illustrating the early development of e-discovery jurisprudence, continues with a discussion of the influential Sedona Conference and the findings of the Advisory Committee on the federal rules, analyzes the most recent case law, and outlines a prudent approach to e-discovery.

    August 26, 2010John Roth and Thomas Jones
  • What happens if, after you file that long-anticipated Daubert/Kumho motion, plaintiff's counsel files a motion to withdraw the original expert and to substitute a new one with superior qualifications and a much stronger theory of liability?

    August 25, 2010James H. Rotondo
  • A review of Nicastro v. J. McIntyre Machinery America, Ltd., in which the Supreme Court of New Jersey ruled in that a plaintiff could bring a product liability action in a New Jersey state court against an England-based product manufacturer under what is termed the stream-of-commerce theory of personal jurisdiction.

    August 25, 2010Roy Alan Cohen and Justin C. Hallberg
  • Highlights of the latest franchising cases from around the country.

    August 25, 2010ALM Staff | Law Journal Newsletters |
  • In addressing the issue of whether an arbitration clause made sense for a franchisor client, for years this author waffled on how to advise that client. He is not alone on this problem.

    August 25, 2010Rupert M. Barkoff
  • For 97 years, neither California legislators nor the courts ever clarified who qualified as an employer under the state Industrial Welfare Commission's (IWC) wage orders. That changed on May 20 when the California Supreme Court decided, in part, who does not qualify.

    August 22, 2010Mike McKee