Features

Putative father could obtain relief under state statute that granted a substantive, not procedural, right to address potential injustice. <i>The State Ex rel. Loyd, v. Lovelady</i>, 108 Ohio St.3d 86 (Ohio 2006).

When societal trends arise, new laws and regulations are sure to follow. Franchises have a choice of making changes as the trends evolve, or waiting until lawmakers and, perhaps, courts force their hands.

Features

We can think of no form of information that cannot be misused ' either deliberately by the manipulative, or inadvertently by the inept. Survey data are no exception. As psychologists, it is with some reluctance that we offer commentary on the relative merits of different standards for the admissibility of expert testimony, but our experiences in different states have heightened our awareness of how different standards affect the admissibility of testimony offered by psychologists in child custody litigation.

The New York Court of Appeals' July, 2006 ruling in <i>Hernandez v. Robles</i> has had implications beyond its core holding that same-sex couples may not marry in New York ' and beyond New York. Courts from Washington to Nebraska to Massachusetts have cited Hernandez to support their decisions to narrow or restrict the rights of gays to marry.

Features

California caught the attention of international franchisors and franchisees who have arbitration clauses in their franchise agreements in the recently filed opinion in <i>Gueyffier v. Ann Summers, Ltd.</i> ___ Cal.App.4th ___, 2006 WL ___ (2d Dist. Oct. 26, 2006). The decision held that an arbitrator exceeded his authority when he ignored provisions in a franchise agreement that limited the circumstances under which he was permitted to find the franchisor in breach.

The shadow of high-profile attorney Willie Gary's wealth hovers over the lengthy appeal recently filed by the mother of his twins, whose $336,000 annual child support payments were slashed in 2005 to a mere $60,000 a year ' plus tuition for the twins' private school ' by a Georgia Superior Court.

Features

A major debate is under way as to the future of the 'grave risk of harm defense' in Hague Convention international child abduction cases. The move is spearheaded by those who believe that the Hague Convention discriminates against expatriate mothers who are victims of domestic violence and who return to their countries of origin with their children.

&#133;