The latest cases of importance to you and your practice.
- July 30, 2004ALM Staff | Law Journal Newsletters |
In Merscorp. v. Romaine (see page 7, infra), Suffolk County Supreme Court was faced with a clash between the traditionally local real property recording system and the increasingly national secondary mortgage market. The County Clerk's office had refused to accept for recording instruments filed in the name of MERS (Mortgage Electronic Recording Systems, Inc.), prompting a proceeding by MERS and the operating company that owns the MERS system for a writ of mandamus compelling the County Clerk to record and index MERS instruments. The case resulted in a split decision: the County Clerk is required to record MERS mortgages, but not assignments or certificates of discharge. The court's opinion, however, reveals some misunderstanding both of the MERS system and of the recording act.
July 30, 2004Stewart E. SterkRecent developments in e-commerce law and in the e-commerce industry.
July 30, 2004Julian S. Millstein, Edward A. Pisacreta and Jeffrey D. NeuburgerBusinesses of all sizes and types should not buy Web sites like a commodity.
Though it's true that many smaller firms have Web sites, good site design and coding require too much skill and creativity to risk using the lowest-cost provider.
Instead, a successful Web-site development contract requires business oversight by the proper personnel ' a team of them ' just as the negotiation of a joint venture or other complex deal does.July 30, 2004Stanley P. JaskiewiczLegislative proposals to regulate spyware and adware have proliferated in Congress and in state legislatures in recent months. To date, only one state ' Utah ' has enacted legislation (enforcement of which as of mid-July had been temporarily enjoined on Constitutional grounds), but several other states and Congress may well do so before the end of the year.
This article describes the various legislative proposals for the regulation of spyware and adware, and their potential impact on e-commerce ' and provides a snapshot of these efforts' status as of the beginning of August.July 30, 2004D. Reed Freeman Jr.The American Society for Quality (ASQ), www.asq.org, headquartered in Milwaukee, was formed Feb. 16, 1946. The purpose of the 104,000-member professional association is to create better workplaces and communities worldwide by advancing learning, quality improvement, and knowledge exchange to improve business results. ASQ makes its officers and member experts available to inform and advise Congress, government agencies, state legislatures, and other groups and individuals on quality-related topics. ASQ representatives have provided testimony on issues such as training, health care quality, education, transportation safety, quality management in the federal government, licensing for quality professionals, and more.
July 30, 2004ALM Staff | Law Journal Newsletters |Highlights of the latest product liability cases from around the country.
July 30, 2004ALM Staff | Law Journal Newsletters |Imagine that you represent a manufacturer who is being sued in a putative class action alleging that one of your client's products is defective. Although some consumers who used the product were injured as a result of the defect, the class action complaint does not make any claims for personal injury. Instead, the complaint asserts claims for economic damages only (eg, refunds of the purchase price of the product). Conventional wisdom would say that you should be thankful. Economic damages usually pale in comparison to personal injury damages, so if putative class counsel has chosen to forego a potentially larger verdict, so be it. Unconventional wisdom, on the other hand, would recognize that the class plaintiffs are "splitting" their claims, and claim splitting presents a number of unique issues for defense counsel.
July 30, 2004Tom Kane and Ronni FuchsA case in strict products liability is available in all states against the manufacturer of a defective product. A "manufacturer" is often defined as one who designs, produces, sells or otherwise distributes the product. Suppose, however, a company's logo is on a product that has been manufactured by someone else. Is the non-manufacturer responsible to a plaintiff and if so, under what theory? The answer depends upon the state in which you sue. Some jurisdictions hold a non-manufacturer liable as an "apparent manufacturer" if it has merely licensed its trademark. Other states require that the licensor have a "significant role" in the chain of distribution, and some states are hybrid, eg, they permit liability against trademark licensors but require more than just licensing the trademark. The following examples illustrate the way some states analyze this liability.
July 30, 2004Lawrence Goldhirsch

