LJN Newsletters

As of Sept. 1, divorcing couples in New York no longer need to seek a temporary restraining order prohibiting their spouse from the unauthorized spending, transfer or concealment of assets under a rule established by court administrators.

While divorce lawyers cannot increase the income and assets of the party they represent, they can help clients by suggesting alternative dispute resolution (ADR) as a tool to save time and money, thus leading to satisfied outcomes for the clients.

Part One of this article discussed issues such as Living Wills, Powers of Attorney and guardianship. The conclusion herein addresses securing rights for the surviving spouse in a same-sex marriage.

The first part of the article described the difference between court-ordered and agreement-based support and denial of modification without a hearing. The conclusion herein discusses recent decisions in New York, New Jersey, Connecticut and New Hampshire.

Recent rulings of interest to you and your practice.

Some important factors seem to be impeding a rush toward televised trials. A split decision by a New York appellate court, in the criminal case of People v. Wrotten, amply reflects some of the tensions. While Wrotten is a criminal case, the ramifications of the decision extend to civil litigation and potentially product liability cases. This two-part article will examine those ramifications.

On Aug. 17, 2009, in Goyette v GlaxoSmithKline, Inc., Justice the court ruled in favor of the respondent GlaxoSmithKline Inc (GSK), dismissing a motion for authorization to institute a class action made by the petitioner on behalf of all persons residing in Canada who allegedly experienced dependency and withdrawal problems as a result of using the antidepressant Paxil.

Does the Vaccine Act preempt all design defect claims in state and federal court? Parents convinced that their children's autism has been caused by inoculations, and their attorneys, recently achieved a surprising victory on the issue when the Georgia Supreme Court ruled that a plaintiff's design defect claims are not barred by the Vaccine Act's preemption clause.