Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Features
Rulngs in neighboring states that may affect your practice.
Features
In Part One of this article, the authors discussed the fact that the rule against hearsay often presents roadblocks for counsel in contested custody and visitation cases. Now they look at the specific exceptions to the rules against hearsay as they relate to child custody litigations.
Features
Punitive, Non-Economic Damages Reduced for Paraplegic Injuries
Features
In an April 18 decision that could affect other kinds of cases involving a federal regulatory scheme, the Texas Supreme Court held that the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Act ('CPSA') pre-empts a tort claim brought against a cigarette lighter manufacturer.
Features
Recent developments you need to know.
Features
In a recent case, a patent owner claimed to have invented side impact airbag sensing. The patent enabled an embodiment; that was stipulated. In opposition to a motion for summary judgment of invalidity for lack of enablement, the owner asserted that enablement of a preferred embodiment satisfied the enablement requirement of the patent law. It didn't. The case is only one of several consistent cases. You should beware, and consider the matter in both patent prosecution and litigation. If you own a patent, and wish for a broad construction, be careful what you wish for.
Features
Saying they 'dispensed deception,' a federal judge in Atlanta has ordered the founders and operators of a now-defunct online pharmacy business to pay the FTC $15.8 million for fraudulent claims associated with the drugs they peddled. In his order, issued June 4, U.S. District Judge Charles A. Pannell also found Dr. Terrill Mark Wright, a physician associated with the online pharmacies, liable for $15.4 million to compensate consumers for false advertising claims.
Features
Recent rulings of importance to your practice.
Features
In its June 3, 2008, decision in <i>Pultz v. Economakis</i>, the New York State Court of Appeals unanimously ruled that there is no limit on the number of rent-stabilized units an owner can attempt to recover for owner occupancy. The ruling was a major victory for rent stabilized landlords, and a sharp rebuke to tenant advocates who claimed that multiple recovery for owner occupancy violated the letter and spirit of the Rent Stabilization Law. Indeed, the case continues a recent trend of favorable Court of Appeals decisions for landlords.