Features
Case Notes
Recent rulings of interest to you and your practice.
Features
Putting Out the Fire Created by Ricci
The <i>Ricci</i> decision is a reminder for all employers: Employment decisions cannot be made based on race, regardless of whatever good intentions the employer may have. Even though the Court confirmed that employers can take "affirmative efforts to ensure that all groups have a fair opportunity to apply for promotions and to participate in the process by which promotions will be made," the actual decisions cannot be tainted by racial consideration.
Features
Legal Holds: Get Them in Writing
In-house counsel and their outside counterparts routinely struggle with the problem of when and how to issue legal hold notices. When is litigation reasonably anticipated? Who should get the notice? Should the notice be tailored to the case or based on a rigid template? One question that should have a consistent answer is whether the notice should be in writing.
Features
Federal Courts Adopt Narrow Constructions of Sarbanes-Oxley Legislation
Complex and systemic, the current financial crisis is nearly certain to yield extensive legislation regulating everything from the financial markets to mortgage brokers to ratings agencies. Any such legislation may raise interpretive issues similar to those that have arisen in recent Federal Court decisions interpreting section 304 and section 1514A(a)(1) of the sweeping Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 ("SOX").
Features
Are Web Applications a Security Concern?
Private companies with external Web sites can be susceptible to attackers looking to commit defacement or infiltrate computer networks to steal sensitive information. Here's what you need to know.
Features
Federal Circuit Reverses Denial of Vaccine Injury Claim
A recent U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit decision reversing the U.S. Court of Federal Claims' denial of a vaccine injury claim highlights the widening gulf between the Federal Circuit and Federal Claims court on vaccine cases.
Features
Divorce Windfall Not Unconscionable
'Courts will not set aside an agreement on the ground of unconscionability simply because it might have been improvident,'" a panel recently held in <i>Etzion v. Etzion</i>, 2008-00759.
Features
Preemption Paradox
The two recent Supreme Court decisions in <i>Riegel</i> and <i>Altria Group</i> are difficult to reconcile in fundamental ways, and, consequently, they did little to provide meaningful guidance to litigants and lower courts.
Features
Decisions of Interest
Recent rulings of importance to you and your practice.
Need Help?
- Prefer an IP authenticated environment? Request a transition or call 800-756-8993.
- Need other assistance? email Customer Service or call 1-877-256-2472.
MOST POPULAR STORIES
- Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright LawsThis 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.Read More ›
- Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult CoinWith 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.Read More ›
- The Article 8 Opt InThe 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.Read More ›
- Removing Restrictive Covenants In New YorkIn 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?Read More ›
- The Stranger to the Deed RuleIn 1987, a unanimous Court of Appeals reaffirmed the vitality of the "stranger to the deed" rule, which holds that if a grantor executes a deed to a grantee purporting to create an easement in a third party, the easement is invalid. Daniello v. Wagner, decided by the Second Department on November 29th, makes it clear that not all grantors (or their lawyers) have received the Court of Appeals' message, suggesting that the rule needs re-examination.Read More ›