Features
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
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
ALM Staff
&
Law Journal Newsletters
Recent rulings you need to know.
Features
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
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.
Features
Janice G. Inman
Federal government attorneys recently unsuccessfully attempted to convince a Federal District Court and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit to rewrite the terms of the Federal Tort Claims Act ('FTCA') to allow the creation of a reversionary trust rather than give a lump-sum award to pay for a medical malpractice plaintiff's future medical expenses.
Features
ALM Staff
&
Law Journal Newsletters
FILM PRODUCTION/DEFAMATION<br>FILM PRODUCTION/TRADEMARKS, DEFAMATION<br>KARAOKE LICENSES/LANHAM ACT, COPYRIGHT CLAIMS
Features
Alyson M. Palmer
Text messages, cell phones, TV game shows, Howie Mandel ' none of these could have been contemplated by Georgia's colonial lawmakers when they first passed a law allowing gamblers to recover their losses through lawsuits. The current version of the law is at the center of a case against NBC Universal and the producer of Mandel's hit show, 'Deal or No Deal,' now being considered by the Georgia Supreme Court.
Features
ALM Staff
&
Law Journal Newsletters
The U.S. District Court for the Central District of California ordered defendant Artisan Pictures to show cause why a suit against it for payment of film-acquisition rights shouldn't be remanded to state court. The federal court noted it 'likely lacks' subject matter jurisdiction over the declaratory suit, even though the case involves whether copyright claims over licenses for film music were time barred.
Features
Stan Soocher
Copyright-infringement cases alleging that a defendant improperly used a plaintiff's work for a movie or TV show often hinge on whether there's substantial similarity between the litigating parties' works. But substantial similarity plays a role in breach-of-implied-contract cases alleging defendants based their film or show on a plaintiff's work. A recent ruling by the California Court of Appeal serves as an informative review of California case law in this legal area and its current application.
