Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Features
Recent rulings of interest to you and your practice.
Features
What's happening in this all-important area.
Features
The authority to concede liability derives from a defendant's inherent right not to contest claims made by a plaintiff. There has been a general reluctance to concede liability on the part of the defense bar, based as much on the inability to recognize what is to be gained by such an approach as on an unrealistic fear of what may be lost. However, conceding liability can provide a valuable opportunity to enhance one's credibility, as well as a vehicle to provide damage and expense control. In the appropriate case, conceding liability can be a particularly effective strategy, which tends to be underused. What are the risks and benefits of conceding liability? In which cases is it appropriate to employ the strategy? We address herein some of the practical aspects.
Features
Physicians and policymakers have long decried the risk of malpractice liability as the greatest obstacle to volunteerism in health care. Over time, lawmakers across the country have responded to these concerns, and today there is an array of federal and state laws that protect volunteer health care providers from lawsuits arising from the provision of charitable medical care. Prudent defense counsel should be aware of the laws that exist to protect volunteer health care providers, and should know just when those laws apply. What federal and state statutes immunize providers of charitable health care, and how can those statutes operate to protect defendants in medical malpractice actions?
Features
Since 1842, U.S. law has required patent owners to provide notice of their patent rights to the public by marking patented articles. The current statute, codified at 35 U.S.C. '287(a), provides that a failure to mark bars a patentee from obtaining damages for the period before it provided a defendant in a patent infringement action with actual notice of its infringement allegations. This can have a significant financial impact, as up to six years of potential damages may be lost.
Features
Despite no seeming fundamental economic differences, there have been occasions where divorce courts in different states have reached different conclusions of value for the same type of business. These states reach such different conclusions as to what constitutes marital property because they have different views as to the meaning of the term 'value.' This article represents a summary of some of our findings concerning the application of the premises and standards of value in divorce matters.
Features
Recent rulings of importance to you and your practice.
Features
In last month's issue, we began an analysis of case law that followed the seminal decision in <i>Christian v. Christian</i>, 42 NY2d 63 (1977), in which the Appellate Division declared that a marital agreement can be set aside if it is 'manifestly unfair,' even if a similar contract between parties in a less 'fiduciary' relationship would be upheld. Part Two provides further guidance on this issue.
Features
While New York courts have struggled in recent years to apply the principles set forth in <i>McSparron</i> and <i>Grunfeld</i> regarding the merger doctrine with respect to the valuation of professional licenses, the recent Court of Appeals decision in <i>Keane v. Keane</i>, 8 NY3d 115 (2006) may serve to complicate matters even further.