Litigation

  • Domestic Violence Victim Goes International

    What happens when the U.S. Supreme Court hands you a loss? As anyone can tell you, this usually signals the end of the road, and defeat must be admitted. Not cowed by such a setback, however, is a Colorado woman on a mission to prevent from happening to anyone else what happened to her when law enforcement authorities refused to protect her children from their murderous father. Although she lost her bid to hold the city of Castle Rock, CO, liable for negligence under U.S. law, she has now gone to an international tribunal.

    April 27, 2007Janice G. Inman

  • On Constitutional Rights, Divorce and the Best-Interest Test

    Other than holding that courts cannot use race as a criterion for decision (Palmore v. Sidoti, the U.S. Supreme Court has not delved deeply into defining the constitutional rights of divorcing parents in the context of a custody dispute. In Shepp v. Shepp, however, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court recently held that a divorced parent had a constitutional right to advocate his sincere religious belief in polygamy to his 9-year-old child.

    April 27, 2007Andrew Schepard

  • Verdicts

    Recent rulings of interest to you and your practice.

    April 27, 2007ALM Staff | Law Journal Newsletters |

  • How Much Is Enough?

    In employment class actions in federal court, such as class actions under Title VII for which Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 provides the governing procedure, the most critical juncture in the case is often the plaintiffs' motion for class certification. That motion requires the court to evaluate whether the plaintiffs have met the Rule 23 requirements and may proceed as a class; denial of the motion generally deals a devastating blow to plaintiffs' claims. In a new ruling that employers can use to support their bids to defeat plaintiffs' motions for class certification under Rule 23, the Second Circuit recently clarified ' and strengthened ' the standard under which district courts should determine plaintiffs' satisfaction of Rule 23's requirements.

    April 27, 2007Victoria Woodlin Chavey

  • Medical Discounts and the Collateral Source Rule

    When tortious conduct causes injuries, the plaintiff is allowed to recover as special damages the 'reasonable value' of the medical services needed to treat the injury. Today, determining what is the 'reasonable value' of health care services is becoming a more challenging task.

    April 27, 2007H. Thomas Watson

  • Equitable Paternity

    Recently, the New York State Court of Appeals equitably estopped a man from denying paternity in order to protect the child's best interests. The man had no biological link to the child, but was deceived by his paramour into thinking that he was the father. Matter of Shondel J. v. Mark D.. The impact this ruling could have on same-sex couples and the children of their unions is potentially significant ' not just for couples in New York, but for same-sex couples in all states that value the best interests of the children of those unions.

    April 27, 2007Marion T.D. Lewis

  • Bit Parts

    Stan Soocher shares the latest news.

    April 27, 2007Stan Soocher

  • Decision of Note

    Recent high-profile decisions.

    April 27, 2007ALM Staff | Law Journal Newsletters |

  • CAFA: Finding a Method to the Madness of 'Mass Actions'

    The Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 ('CAFA') expanded federal jurisdiction over putative class actions. Under CAFA, the federal diversity jurisdiction statute, 28 U.S.C. '1332, was amended to allow for both original and removal jurisdiction over putative class actions where: 1) the putative class action consists of at least 100 proposed class members; 2) the citizenship of at least one proposed class member is different from that of any defendant ('minimal diversity'); and 3) the matter in controversy, after aggregating the claims of the proposed class members, exceeds $5 million, exclusive of interest and costs. See generally P.L. 109-2 '4(a), codified at 28 U.S.C. '1332(d). This expanded federal diversity jurisdiction is subject to certain exceptions, including the 'local controversy' and 'home-state controversy' exceptions, where, inter alia, a certain percentage of putative class members and the 'primary defendants,' or defendants from whom 'significant relief is sought,' are citizens of the forum state. See 28 U.S.C. '1332(d)(3) and (4).

    April 26, 2007Alan E. Rothman