Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
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.
This article addresses the Second Circuit's decision affirming the application of the 'government contractor defense' to preclude the plaintiffs' claims asserted against the companies that had manufactured the herbicides. Under the government contractor defense, a private manufacturer is immunized from liability where it has made a product in accordance with specifications formulated by the government.
Features
Like many organizations, title inflation has befallen law firms. Clearly, titles are important. Despite the temporary de-emphasis during the 'dot-com' era, titles are fundamental to any organizational design especially in a law firm setting where a more hierarchical model has always been valued. Used correctly, it can represent a way to reward, and in theory retain, talent. Positioning the marketing function at the 'C' level seems to make good sense, for the firm and certainly the executive. Despite this, before taking on the title ask yourself; am I getting a seat at the table or on the edge of a cliff?
On Dec. 13, 2007, the DOL issued its long-awaited proposed rule on the subject of 401(k) fee disclosures. The Department issued this rule against a backdrop of increased Congressional attention and media scrutiny, and it is likely to be contentious. This article explains the key features of the proposed rule.
Features
It's not a secret that a strong summer associate program is essential to attracting and retaining talent. Aside from providing good work assignments and networking opportunities, a summer program would not be complete without a training component. Whether your firm provides a few seminars or a formal Summer Associate Academy complete with workshops, guest speakers, and opportunities to attend off-site conferences, the following provides an overview of some easy steps for creating an effective summer associate training program.
Features
Sex-based stereotypes still play a role in workplace decisions in what has become one of the fastest growing areas of employment discrimination law: Family Responsibilities Discrimination ('FRD'). While overall the filing of employment discrimination cases has declined in recent years, FRD lawsuits have increased by 400% in the last decade; and FRD cases have a 50% success rate, compared with a 20% success rate for other employment discrimination cases.
Features
Recent developments you need to know.
While the rhyming nature of these two Web sites provided entertaining fodder for journalists and bloggers, in <i>Lulu Enterprises, Inc. v. N-F Newsite, LLC, aka Hulu, LLC, et. al</i>, the court focused its denial of Plaintiff Lulu's motion for preliminary injunction not on the rhyming nature of the domain names, but upon the Plaintiff's inability to prove imminent harm from the launch of Defendant's 'hulu.com' Web site. Rather than focusing on a likelihood of confusion analysis, the court's decision instead contains useful commentary on the effects of statements made in federal registration applications, and the likely expansion of the use of the mark, as they relate to the 'imminent harm' standard in trademark and unfair competition cases.
