Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Features
How privileged, how impenetrable, is the peer review privilege? In <i>Fox v. Kramer</i>, 22 Cal. 4th 531, 994 P.2d 343 (Cal. 2000), the Supreme Court of California considered this narrow issue: Could plaintiffs Wendy Fox and her husband, Dr. Richard B. Fox, subpoena a doctor to give expert testimony or refer at trial to his draft preliminary report when his conclusions were based on hospital peer review committee records reviewed in the course of his official duties for a public agency?
Features
The latest rulings of importance to your practice.
The first half of 2003 has not been kind to friends of punitive damages. No matter the setting, they have taken a beating.
Eight registered nurses who underwent pre-employment medical examinations were instead sexually harassed, according to a proposed Consent Decree submitted to Judge Leonard Sand by the EEOC and Lutheran Medical Center. Under the terms of the proposed settlement reached by the parties, the medical center has agreed to pay $5.425 million dollars to compensate the nurses and other female nurses similarly harassed.
Your ethics questions answered by the expert.
Features
The most substantial changes in more than 50 years to the way employers determine whether they are obligated to pay overtime compensation could well become reality. The United States Department of Labor (DOL) issued proposed revisions to its regulations on the "white-collar" exemptions to the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) on March 31, 2003. If enacted in a version close to their present form, the way you do business could change considerably.
Features
It is often said that bad facts make bad law. A corollary to that principle may be that notorious clients make for problematic verdicts. Such was the case in <i>Bell v. Helmsley</i>, 2003 WL 1453108 (Sup.Ct. N.Y.Cty. 3/4/03), a trial dominated by the ever-entertaining presence of the Queen of Mean, Leona Helmsley.
Recent rulings of importance to your practice.
Features
With a June 1 due date looming for a new list of eligible fiduciaries, lawyers interested in qualifying for the court-appointed positions must meet the new training requirements announced by Chief Administrative Judge Jonathan Lippman in March. Developing new training requirements was one of the recommendations of a blue-ribbon panel appointed by Chief Judge Judith S. Kaye to examine the court's system for the appointment of fiduciaries to ensure there is no favoritism.
There appears to be no reason why the parties to a separation agreement cannot specifically provide in their agreement that a resumption of marital relations will not be deemed a reconciliation, and that the separation agreement will not be impaired or invalidated thereby unless a formal written document is executed by the parties acknowledging such reconciliation and affirmatively canceling the agreement. Indeed, such language is commonly found in separation agreements, and its obvious purpose is to avoid subsequent litigation in the event of a failed reconciliation attempt.