Features
Judge Delays Ruling
Many New Yorkers have for some time been frustrated by the fact that this remains the only state in the union lacking any form of no-fault divorce. Last year, the matrimonial commission appointed by Chief Judge Judith S. Kaye concluded that 'fault allegations and fault trials add significantly to the cost, delay and trauma of matrimonial litigation.' Still, little progress has been made by those seeking to change this state of affairs.
Features
NY Divorce Ruling Awaits Action in Legislature
The New York judiciary has taken what can be seen as an extraordinarily activist position in an attempt to urge the legislature to change its position on the grounds for divorce in New York, the only state that still requires grounds for divorce. A trial judge has decided to withhold his ruling in a divorce case in the hope that the state legislature will soon pass a bill adding irreconcilable differences as no-fault grounds for divorce in New York state.
Features
UPDATE: Eleventh Circuit Affirms Lowery Case
As the May edition of <i>LJN's Product Liability Law & Strategy</i> went to press, the Eleventh U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals sought to 'unravel some of the mysteries of CAFA's cryptic text' with respect to the 'mass actions' provisions — which the court characterized as an 'opaque, baroque maze of interlocking cross-references that defy easy interpretation.' <i>Lowery v. Alabama Power Co.</i>, __ F. 3d __, 2007 WL 1062769, at *1, *8 (11th Cir. Apr. 11, 2007), affirming <i>Lowery v. Honeywell Int'l Inc.</i>, 460 F. Supp. 2d 1288 (N.D. Ala. 2006). In affirming the grant of remand, the Court of Appeals (in dicta) addressed some of the issues presented in our article 'CAFA: Finding a Method to the Madness of 'Mass Actions'':
Features
Philip Morris USA v. Williams: Another Logical Step in the Control of Punitive Damages Or a Catalyst for a New Approach?
On Feb. 20, 2007, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its decision in <i>Philip Morris USA v. Williams</i>, ____ U.S. ____, 127 S. Ct. 1057 (2007), the latest in a series of decisions since 1991 exploring the limits that the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment imposes on state jury awards of punitive damages. An Oregon jury had awarded the widow of a Marlboro smoker $821,000 in compensatory damages and $79.5 million in punitive damages on a deceit claim against Philip Morris. After a series of appeals, the Supreme Court of Oregon had upheld the punitive damages award. The U.S. Supreme Court accepted the case to address two specific questions: 1) whether a state-court jury in a punitive damages award may punish the defendant for harm caused to parties not before the court; and 2) whether the $79.5 million punitive damages award was 'grossly excessive' because it was not reasonably related to the actual or potential harm caused by the defendant to the plaintiff. In a 5-4 decision, the Court answered the first question 'no' and declined to address the second question until the Oregon state courts had considered the case further.
Features
Let Litigation Support Take Charge
This article identifies select law firm issues that can significantly impact cost and speed throughout the entire case lifecycle, and offers viable solutions to dealing with them.
Features
Net News
Ninth Circuit Hands Google A Copyright Victory in Dispute Over Nude Pictures
Features
Defective Pet Foods: New Litigation Theories Or Just the Same Old Chow? An Animal Law Attorney Argues for More Than Market Value Damages
One of the biggest stories in product liability in the past month has been the recall of tens of thousands of cans of food sold to consumers to feed to their companion animals. The news has attracted public attention because it is a tragedy of potentially epic proportion: Somewhere between 20 (according to the FDA) and 20,000-plus (by extrapolating statisticians) of the nation's nonhuman family members have developed serious illnesses and/or died from eating food containing something very toxic that has caused renal failure (still being debated). Furthermore, in the litigation arena, plaintiffs' attorneys ranging from sole practitioners to the large class action law firms most often in the headlines have all filed actions representing both individual clients and broad-ranging classes of thousands of individuals affected by the poisoned food. (At the time of this writing, more than 30 cases had supposedly been filed across the country.)
Features
In the Courts
Recent rulings of interest to you and your practice.
Features
Computer Forensics Docket Sheet
Court Issues Spoliation Sanctions for 'Crashed' Hard Drive<br>Court Issues Adverse Jury Instruction Where Plaintiff Disposed of Evidence
Features
e-Discovery Docket Sheet
Recent court rulings in e-discovery.
Need Help?
- Prefer an IP authenticated environment? Request a transition or call 800-756-8993.
- Need other assistance? email Customer Service or call 1-877-256-2472.
MOST POPULAR STORIES
- Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright LawsThis article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.Read More ›
- Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult CoinWith each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.Read More ›
- The Article 8 Opt InThe Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.Read More ›
- Removing Restrictive Covenants In New YorkIn Rockwell v. Despart, the New York Supreme Court, Third Department, recently revisited a recurring question: When may a landowner seek judicial removal of a covenant restricting use of her land?Read More ›