In last month's newsletter, we discussed the recently decided case In Re K-Dur Antitrust Litigation,in which the Third Circuit bucked the trend of rubber-stamping pay-for-delay patent lawsuit settlements. The discussion concludes herein.
The fastest way to a mistrial is to mention the word "insurance" in front of the jury. This maxim refers to the collateral source rule. But what about the words "public benefits" or "special education"?
Robotic technology may spawn both medical malpractice and product liability exposures, claims and lawsuits. Suits and claims may arise from one area or both. Here's what you need to know.
This article provides an in-depth discussion of the concept of common-law indemnification, using New York State to illustrate how the law has evolved in that state. Be aware that many states have their own peculiarities that must be identified at the outset of any litigation so that an appropriate strategy can be devised.
The U.S. Supreme Court's recent decision in Christopher v. SmithKline Beecham Corp. was not only a landmark decision for the pharmaceutical industry, but also provided important guidance for the application of the outside sales exemption in other settings
In late June, the Third Circuit considered the broad definition of "employer" under the FLSA to determine when two employers jointly employ an employee, an issue that has been arising with increasing frequency.
The U.S. Supreme Court's recent decision in Christopher v. SmithKline Beecham Corp. was not only a landmark decision for the pharmaceutical industry, but also provided important guidance for the application of the outside sales exemption in other settings.
This article discusses three of the most common errors made by employers, all of which can be easily avoided.
The importance of immigration compliance continues to grow as more and more companies realize the negative consequences of violating the Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA). This article explores how to avoid these negative consequences.
Since the owners of an Ulster County, NY, mall took at least "minimal precautions to protect tenants from foreseeable harm," they cannot be held liable for the brutal after-hours murder of the night manager of a restaurant, an appellate court has held.
