Features
Marcia Coyle
A federal appeals court is weighing whether to review a controversial tax decision in which a unanimous three-judge panel struck down as unconstitutional the federal income tax on nonphysical, compensatory damages awards. (<i>See</i> 'Court Tosses Federal Tax Statute Covering Emotional Damages,' <i>Medical Malpractice Law & Strategy</i>, Nov. 2006). Claiming the case is one of 'exceptional importance' to the execution of the nation's tax laws, the Bush administration recently asked the full U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia to rehear <i>Murphy v. U.S.</i>, No. 05-5139. In October, the court, on its own motion, ordered lawyers for Marrita Murphy to respond to the government's rehearing petition, a signal that the court is interested, according to some circuit watchers.
Features
ALM Staff
&
Law Journal Newsletters
The latest information from the pharmaceutical world.
Features
Michael D. Brophy
During the late summer and early autumn of 2006, the medical community began to express second thoughts about the safety of drug-coated cardiac stents, which have in recent years been given credit for reducing the frequency of complications arising from the use of a previous generation of stents. The publicity generated by the news media interested me in my professional role representing health care providers, and for personal reasons as well.
Features
Myrna Felder
Like New Jersey, New York generally does not consider fault when distributing marital assets. (<i>See</i> Strober L: Marital Misconduct and Alimony. <i>The Matrimonial Strategist</i>, November 2006.) However, there are circumstances under which both states will factor in fault.
Features
Julian S. Millstein, Edward A. Pisacreta
&
Jeffrey D. Neuburger
Recent cases in e-commerce law and in the e-commerce industry.
Features
Gregg A. Farley
&
Christopher K. Pelham
When Congress passed the Class Action Fairness Act ('CAFA') in 2005, committee reports showed that several legislators believed the Act would shift from defendant to plaintiff the burden of proof with respect to the existence of federal removal jurisdiction. CAFA's legislative history contains statements from several members of Congress indicating that a plaintiff opposing removal under the Act would have the burden of establishing the absence of federal jurisdiction. For a short period following CAFA's passage, certain federal district courts found this legislative history controlling and held that CAFA shifted the burden of proof.
Features
ALM Staff
&
Law Journal Newsletters
Recent rulings of importance to you and your practice.
Features
Sandra Feldman
Fourth-quarter roundup of all the latest compliance rulings.
Features
ALM Staff
&
Law Journal Newsletters
National rulings of interest.
Features
ALM Staff
&
Law Journal Newsletters
Recent rulings of interest to you and your practice.
