A $10,000 "side bet" wasn't enough to persuade a Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals en banc panel to answer whether federal courts have jurisdiction over out-of-state Internet retailers.
March 15, 2005Jeff Chorney
As technology advancements and competition combine to drive information technology (IT) costs down, law firms of all sizes are poised to take advantage…
March 15, 2005Michael MorizioSXSW Music and Media Conference and Festival 2005 CLE Program, sponsored by SXSW. In Austin, TX, March 18-19. Will cover music law year in review, live performance and touring issues, alternative digital deals, artist career co-ventures, structuring agreements in the music industry and legal ethics in the digital age. For further information: 512-467-7979 or www.sxsw.com. …
February 25, 2005ALM Staff | Law Journal Newsletters |Highlights of the latest intellectual property news from around the country.
February 25, 2005Compiled by Eric AgovinoEverything that's contained in this issue, in one easy list.
February 25, 2005ALM Staff | Law Journal Newsletters |Recent cases of importance to you and your practice.
February 25, 2005ALM Staff | Law Journal Newsletters |All the latest cases for your review.
February 25, 2005ALM Staff | Law Journal Newsletters |Although New York courts have long-recognized that "an easement created by grant may be extinguished by adverse possession" (See Harlem Commonwealth Council, Inc. v. Thomas Memorial Wesleyan Methodist Church, 10 A.D.3d 572 (1st Dep't 2004); Spiegel v. Ferraro, 73 N.Y.2d 622, 625 (1989); Gerbig v. Zumpano, 7 N.Y.2d 327 (1960)), a different rule has been applied to "unopened" easements -- ie, easements that have been created by grant but have remained unused. Generally, a possession will not be deemed adverse to an unopened easement or right of way until three conditions have been satisfied. These conditions are: 1) the need by the easement holder for the right of way has arisen; 2) a demand has been made by the easement holder that the right of way be opened; and 3) the servient tenant (property owner) has refused the demand. Castle Associates v. Schwartz, 63 A.D.2d 481 (2d Dep't 1978).
February 25, 2005Eric D. Cherches, Alan M. Tarter, and Andrew N. KrinskyRecent rulings you need to know.
February 25, 2005ALM Staff | Law Journal Newsletters |