Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Last year, a Missouri appellate court affirmed a lower court's holding that where a lease prohibited a tenant from assigning its interest in the lease without the landlord's consent, the tenant also could not assign an option to purchase the real property the tenant was leasing from the landlord, without the landlord's consent. That court held that a tenant's rights under an option to purchase were a covenant that ran with the land, and that the tenant could not assign those rights without the landlord's consent because the lease limited assignment of the lease generally. <i>Megargel Willbrand & Co., LLC v. Fampat Limited Partnership</i>, No. ED 86570, 2006WL956963 (Mo. Ct. App. Apr. 11, 2006)
Features
News about lawyers and law fims in the product liability field.
Features
Highlights of the latest product liability cases from around the country.
Features
Attorneys have an ethical obligation to represent their clients zealously. Deposition preparation is key to that obligation. Preparing testifying witnesses educates and focuses them on important issues and facts of a case. This aside, the law regarding disclosure of work product provided to testifying witnesses is not well settled, and 'there is considerable room within which thoughtful judges can reach different conclusions.' <i>Intermedics, Inc. v. Ventritex, Inc.</i>, 139 F.R.D. 384, 387 (N.D. Cal. 1991). Zealous representation, therefore, requires counsel to walk a line between witness preparation on one side and work product disclosure on the other. In so doing, counsel must also remain mindful of the line that exists between acceptable witness preparation and impermissible influencing of a witness. <i>State v. Earp</i>, 571 A.2d 1227, 1235 (Md. 1990). One misstep may lead to disclosure of counsel's mental impressions and strategy and, possibly, to serious sanctions.
In order to hold a defendant liable in a product liability case, tort law traditionally has required an injured plaintiff to show that the named defendant manufactured, sold, or distributed the product that allegedly caused the plaintiff's injury. Over the years, however, courts have established exceptions to this general rule. <i>See, e.g., Thomas v. Mallett</i>, 701 N.W.2d 523 (Wis. 2005) (lead paint manufacturers held liable under a market share liability theory even though the plaintiff could not prove which defendant manufactured injury-causing product). Recently, several courts have further eased plaintiffs' burden of proof by using theories of designer liability to hold companies responsible for injuries to consumers, even though the plaintiff could not show that the defendant manufactured, sold, or distributed the product that caused the plaintiff's injuries.
South Florida. Rio Grand Valley and Gulf Coast, TX. West Virginia. Cook County, Madison County, and St. Clair County, IL. Ask most Americans what the connection is between those disparate places and you will probably get quizzical looks. Ask most product liability defense attorneys (or their multinational clients), however, and you may get looks of frustration, anger, possibly even apprehension. According to a 2006 report by the American Tort Reform Foundation, those jurisdictions are so-called 'Judicial Hellholes',' which are 'places where judges systematically apply laws and court procedures in an unfair and unbalanced manner, generally against defendants in civil litigations.' <i>See www.atra.org/reports/hellholes</i> at 1.
When the British invaded in the 1960s, they came as rock and roll bands. Today, the British ' joined by the Italians, the French, and other foreign nationals ' are storming America's shores as plaintiffs in pharmaceutical personal-injury class action and other complex litigation matters. These plaintiffs sue domestic U.S. corporations here for alleged injuries caused abroad by their international subsidiaries. In doing so, the foreign plaintiffs are attempting to circumvent favorable foreign law that protects the corporate defendant. As shown below, the <i>forum non conveniens</i> doctrine is a viable defense to these suits in certain situations.
Features
Highlights of the latest equipment leasing news from around the country.
In equipment leasing industry court cases, one of the challenges lawyers and judges face is simply understanding the nuances and contractual language of the business. That makes credible expert testimony in such legal matters especially critical to winning a case, whether it involves a bank, captive finance company, or independent leasing firm.
Features
In a recent decision, <i>Cummings Properties, Inc. v. Aspeon Solutions, Inc., et al.</i> (Lawyers Weekly No. 13-019-07), the Massachusetts District Court/Boston Municipal Court Appellate Division affirmed the District Court judge's findings at trial that a defendant could not be held personally liable on a guaranty contained in a commercial real estate lease that the defendant quickly signed in two places before rushing off to the airport to make a flight. This decision was affirmed by the appellate division based on the defense of fraud in the factum.
