Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%

Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.

Home Topics

Litigation

Features

How to Manage Your Litigation Costs Image

How to Manage Your Litigation Costs

Stewart M. Weltman

This is the first in a series of articles discussing how in-house counsel can better manage litigation matters.

Features

The 'Unindicted Co-Conspirator' Image

The 'Unindicted Co-Conspirator'

Stanley A. Twardy, Jr. & Doreen Klein

The criminal justice process can be arcane, but one term is recognizable to the public. An indictment is a formal accusation by a grand jury that an indicted individual has committed a crime. While damning, the indicted defendant nonetheless has the constitutional right to say to the government, 'Prove it,' and, if the government fails, to be cleared of all criminal wrongdoing. Unlike the defendant who has a right to defend himself, the unindicted co-conspirator is not on trial but confined to a limbo in which vindication is never possible.

Features

Termination Premiums Under ERISA Held to Be Dischargeable Prepetition Claims Image

Termination Premiums Under ERISA Held to Be Dischargeable Prepetition Claims

William J.F. Roll, III, Michael H. Torkin & Solomon J. Noh

In a matter of first impression, the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York held that the termination premiums assessed against Oneida Ltd. ('Oneida') as a result of the termination of one of Oneida's pension plans during its Chapter 11 case were prepetition 'claims' (as defined in ' 101(5) of title 11 of the United States Code (the 'Bankruptcy Code')) that were discharged under Oneida's confirmed plan of reorganization.

Features

Decisions of Interest Image

Decisions of Interest

ALM Staff & Law Journal Newsletters

Recent rulings of interest to you and your practice.

Features

NJ and CT News Image

NJ and CT News

ALM Staff & Law Journal Newsletters

Important rulings that may affect your practice.

Features

Panel Finds International Custody Battle Belongs in NY Image

Panel Finds International Custody Battle Belongs in NY

Noeleen G. Walder

A Manhattan appellate court refused to relinquish jurisdiction over a custody case in which a mother fled with her 5-year-old son to Italy because she thought she was not getting a fair hearing in a New York Family Court. In an unusual ruling in late December 2007, the Appellate Division, First Department, reversed the conclusion of Manhattan Family Court that the case belonged in the Italian courts.

Features

International Custody Disputes Image

International Custody Disputes

Mark A. Momjian

Family lawyers with cases involving application of Section 105(c) of the UCCJEA need to marshal Internet and other resources to determine whether the child custody law of a foreign jurisdiction violates a child's fundamental right to safety and protection. Although Section 105(c) does not provide a broad exception to the otherwise stringent standards of the UCCJEA, in cases where a child's welfare is threatened by deferral of jurisdiction to a foreign tribunal or enforcement of a foreign order, a trial court can invoke Section 105(c) to circumvent application of the UCCJEA's rigorous jurisdictional and enforcement provisions.

Features

In the Courts Image

In the Courts

ALM Staff & Law Journal Newsletters

Recent rulings you need to know.

Features

'Loss' in the Air Will Not Do Image

'Loss' in the Air Will Not Do

Evan A. Jenness

Sky-high loss enhancements are increasingly scrutinized in a post-<i>Booker</i> world. Drawing on civil securities law, recent decisions in several circuits endorse an approach holding a defendant responsible for only the portion of victims' losses that was proximately caused by the offense. Some courts' critical analyses bode well for future sentencings.

Features

Supreme Court Handles Device Makers a Victory Image

Supreme Court Handles Device Makers a Victory

Janice G. Inman

The U.S. Supreme Court in February tackled an issue that has come up frequently in lawsuits brought by plaintiffs claiming they've been injured by medical devices: Do the Medical Device Amendments of 1976 preempt state law-based claims against device manufacturers? The Court had partially answered the question in <i>Lohr v. Medtronic</i>, but the fact situation in that case did not necessarily make its decision applicable to other cases against medical devices manufacturers.

Need Help?

  1. Prefer an IP authenticated environment? Request a transition or call 800-756-8993.
  2. Need other assistance? email Customer Service or call 1-877-256-2472.

MOST POPULAR STORIES