Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Features
Highlights of the latest product liability cases from around the country.
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York decided that opinion testimony of a copyright-infringement musicologist that was consistent with his infringement-analysis report would be admissible expert evidence, if needed. <i>Velez v. Sony Discos</i>, 05 Civ. 0615(PKC).
Features
Recent rulings that may affect your business.
Features
Marshall Grossman and Stanton 'Larry' Stein may be in for some awkward elevator rides. The two heavyweights at L.A.'s Alschuler Grossman Stein & Kahan officially divorced Jan. 1, after a year-long tug-of-war over the future of the 90-lawyer firm they'd fused together seven years ago. Now they've got their own firms, but they're just one floor away in Santa Monica's Water Garden building.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit decided, in a case of first impression, that the federal ban on renting or lending sound recordings doesn't apply to audiobooks. <i>Brilliance Audio Inc. v. Haights Cross Communications Inc.</i>, 05-1209.
Features
Medical monitoring is often pursued as a claim in class actions against corporate defendants based on exposures to environmental pollutants or products that allegedly have the potential to cause future health problems. Because medical monitoring is an exception to the general requirement that the plaintiff must have a present injury in order to pursue a claim, many jurisdictions have adopted strict elements that a plaintiff must satisfy in order to succeed on a medical monitoring claim. These elements often require the court to consider issues specific to individual plaintiffs, particularly aspects of each plaintiff's medical history that have an impact on the need for or the extent of the proposed medical monitoring. As a result of these individual medical issues, many courts in recent years have refused to certify medical monitoring class actions. <i>See, e.g., Ball v. Union Carbide Corp.</i>, 385 F.3d 713, 727-28 (6th Cir. 2004); <i>Zinser v. Accufix Research Inst., Inc.</i>, 253 F. 3d 1180, 1195-96, <i>amended,</i> 273 F.3d 1266 (9th Cir. 2001); <i>Barnes v. Am. Tobacco Co.</i>, 161 F.3d 127, 143 (3d Cir. 1998); <i>Boughton v. Cotter Corp.</i>, 65 F.3d 823, 827 (10th Cir. 1995).
