The California Supreme Court is struggling to decide whether state law allows courts to grant visitation rights to grandparents over the objections of parents who have not been declared unfit. There is widespread interest in the case, with amici curiae including the Association of Certified Family Law Specialists, the Coalition for Restoration of Parental Rights, the American Civil Liberties Union and two gay and lesbian groups.
It seems obvious: If you want to know about a litigant's mental state or a child's psychological needs, ask the litigant's or child's therapist. Wrong! There are good reasons not to confuse treating-therapists with expert witnesses. The testimony of treating-therapists rarely contributes to the litigation and calling on the treating-therapist will usually destroy therapy.
A Manhattan Supreme Court justice has ordered a celebrity artist who tried to avoid almost $2 million in legal fees by claiming that his law firm's bills were unethically high to pay up.
Exclusive to online subscribers, more cases and happenings of interest to the e-commerce industry.
National cases of importance to your practice.
Recent cases for your review.
On Feb. 24, 2004, the U.S. Supreme Court issued an important decision concerning whether the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) prohibits employers from engaging in "reverse discrimination" by favoring older workers over younger workers. In General Dynamics Land Systems, Inc. v. Cline, the Supreme Court held that the ADEA does not prohibit employers from favoring older employers over younger ones. Because this decision resolves a conflict in various federal circuit courts of appeal, the Supreme Court's opinion eliminates any uncertainty concerning this issue at the federal level.
A recent Second Circuit decision clarifies the application of the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA), 28 U.S.C. 1602 et seq., in a discrimination case filed against foreign governments and their agencies and instrumentalities.
Employees leave their current employers every day, presumably to pursue new and brighter career opportunities. This is especially true today, as the economy seems to be picking up pace and employers find themselves needing to expand their workforces. Inevitably, some employees will go to work for competitors of their former employers. While employees have the right to seek new and better jobs, the law is equally clear that they may not do so at the expense of their former employer's business interests.
National cases of interest to your practice.
