Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Highlights of the latest insurance cases from around the country.
Features
Almost all class actions that are resolved involve an award of attorneys' fees to plaintiffs' counsel. In some instances, the fee awards are specified by agreement and are paid from the overall settlement. In other instances, the fees are determined in a separate hearing and may be awarded in addition to the settlement payment. These awards of attorneys' fees often reach millions of dollars and may, in some circumstances, be one of the most significant components of a settlement or judgment.
Features
As a practical matter, the decision of whether to settle claims brought against a policyholder is typically left to the insurer. The interests of the insurer and the policyholder are typically aligned, whether it is because of the policyholder's inherent desire to resolve the litigation or the insurer's vastly greater experience in defending and settling claims.
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York vacated sanctions issued against an attorney representing the estate of Tarzan illustrator Burne Hogarth, which had sued over rights in Hogarth's works following the release of The Walt Disney Co.'s animated "Tarzan" movie.
Features
Recently filed cases in entertainment law, straight from the steps of the Los Angeles Superior Court.
Recent developments in entertainment law. <p>This month:<br>Agent Commissions/Arbitration Awards<br>Documentaries/Defamation<br>Downloading/Default Judgment<br>DVD Distribution/Preliminary Injunctions<br>Tax Liability/Royalty Statements
Features
Agency Agreements/Commissions<br>Recording Contracts/Copyright Renewals
Features
In its opinion, the Supreme Court clearly focused the test for copyright infringement liability on the subjective question of the purpose of the software's distribution ' an approach that better comports with basic notions of fairness than that of the courts below. But read together, the plurality opinion and two concurring opinions raise a new set of disquieting questions.
Features
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York ruled that there was no substantial similarity between the hook in the plaintiff's song and the hook in the defendant's song that would support an inference of copying
