Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Features
Recent rulings of interest to you and your practice.
Features
Rulngs in neighboring states that may affect your practice.
Features
In Part One of this article, the authors discussed the fact that the rule against hearsay often presents roadblocks for counsel in contested custody and visitation cases. Now they look at the specific exceptions to the rules against hearsay as they relate to child custody litigations.
On May 15, when the California Supreme Court ruled that marriage could not be denied to same-sex couples, the door seemingly flew wide open for gay and lesbian couples from any state in the union (and beyond) to go to California and get married. Whether that right would prove elusive for New York residents ' as was the case in Massachusetts, when that state decided to reserve gay marriage rights only for Massachusetts residents ' was an open question.
Features
Punitive, Non-Economic Damages Reduced for Paraplegic Injuries
Features
In an April 18 decision that could affect other kinds of cases involving a federal regulatory scheme, the Texas Supreme Court held that the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Act ('CPSA') pre-empts a tort claim brought against a cigarette lighter manufacturer.
New products frequently give rise to new waves of product liability litigation. With nanotechnology-rooted innovation forecasted to account for upward of $1.5 trillion in global commerce by 2015, the stakes are high.
On April 3, 2008, the California Supreme Court, faced with a question of first impression, adopted the Sophisticated User Doctrine as a viable affirmative defense in product liability cases. The issue, as framed by the court, was whether California should adopt the Sophisticated User Doctrine to negate a manufacturer's duty to warn of a product's potential danger when the plaintiff has, or should have, advance knowledge of the product's inherent hazards. The ruling is an undeniable victory for product manufacturers.
In recent years, an increasing number of state and federal courts nationwide have issued 'Lone Pine orders' ' case management orders that require plaintiffs in mass tort litigation to substantiate their claims early in the litigation. Jurisdictions are split on whether to permit Lone Pine orders, which typically require plaintiffs to submit evidence, often in the form of expert affidavits or reports, of each plaintiff's exposure to toxic substances, each plaintiff's claim of illness, personal injury or property damage, and a causation link between the exposure and the injury.