Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Times have changed. Depositions, used at trial for impeachment purposes, are now more than just dry words on a page. Increasingly, they are on videotape and the courts are happy about that. <i>Weseloh-Hurtig v. Hepker</i>, 152 F.R.D. 198, 201 (D. Kan. 1993). Should lawyers feel the same way? Well, it depends on whether you are the attorney taking the deposition or if you are the one whose client's deposition is being captured on video. It can be a blessing or it can be the death knell for your case. Let's look at this developing trend.
The ongoing effort to resolve globally the problem of overwhelming mass-tort liability continues this year through legislation. A Senate bill to create a trust administered by the Department of Labor, funded by industry and insurance contributions, was voted down in April. Whether this proposed resolution ultimately fares better than those preceding it remains to be seen. In the meantime, however, the Rand Institute for Civil Justice reports that by the end of 2002, at least 56 companies had turned to bankruptcy to find the resolution and finality they needed to get back to their business. Others will undoubtedly follow before any global solution is ultimately reached.
Features
Recent cases of importance to your practice.
Recent rulings of importance to your practice.
The right to adopt controls on the use of land in New York, although derived from the state's power, has largely devolved to local municipal governments through New York's Town Law and Village Law, and similar legislation for cities. There are areas, however, where the state still exercises control, frequently as general oversight in perceived problem areas -- coastal erosion and flood zones for example. The state also exercised its power, beginning in 1960, to allow for the creation of county-wide planning boards, to allow for the input of regional and county-wide considerations in local land use decisions.
Congress approved legislation on July 22 that aims to strip the federal courts of the ability to decide cases challenging the federal Defense of Marriage Act. Proponents of the largely Republican-backed bill, the Marriage Protection Act of 2004 (H.R. 3313), indicate it is necessary to keep federal courts from invalidating the part of the act that says states can't be forced to recognize same-sex marriages entered into in other states. They say state courts should be the exclusive forums for challenges to the act because states have traditionally decided who shall be allowed to marry within their jurisdictions.