News Briefs
June 30, 2005
Highlights of the latest silica news from around the country.
Where Will Silica Litigation Go?
June 30, 2005
It has been reported in the national press that plaintiffs' lawyers are mapping out a litigation scenario for silica based on the assumption that it will follow the asbestos model, <i>e.g.</i>, Warren, Susan, "Silicosis Suits Rise Like Dust: Lawyers in Asbestos Cases Target Many of the Same Companies," Wall St. J., Sept. 4, 2003, at B5; Glater, Jonathan D., "Suits on Silica Being Compared to Asbestos Cases," N.Y. Times, Sept. 6, 2003, at C1.
In the Spotlight: Being Gun-Shy ' Difficulties Surrounding the Trigger of Rights of First Refusal and First Offer
June 30, 2005
The right of first refusal ('ROFR') and its close cousin, the right of first offer ('ROFO'), collectively sometimes called pre-emptive rights, are devices used to afford the grantee a degree of flexibility in potentially buying or leasing the subject property at a future time. These rights can be considerably more troublesome, especially to grantors, than may be immediately apparent to many real estate deal makers. Many who have been 'burned' recognize that the problems include: 1) financial loss and delay in completing a transaction that arise from dampened interest in the subject property on the part of third-party potential bidders, and 2) disputes (sometimes resulting in litigation) that arise from issues surrounding the triggering, execution, and preservation of the right. This article focuses on the second problem, with special emphasis on disputes that revolve around the triggering of the pre-emptive rights. It also suggests certain drafting implications that follow from the analysis.
Landmark Nebraska Decision
June 30, 2005
On May 12, 2005, a federal trial judge in Nebraska struck down what has been called the most extreme of the anti-gay family laws in the nation. <i>Citizens for Equal Protection, Inc., v. Bruning</i>, - F. Supp. 2nd - , 2005 WL 1126834 (D. Neb. 2005). Passed by Nebraska voters in 2000, the ballot initiative that was known as "Measure 416" became Section 29 of the Bill of Rights of the Nebraska constitution. In addition to limiting marriage to a man and a woman, the measure provided that the "uniting of two persons of the same sex in a civil union, domestic partnership, or other similar same-sex relationship shall not be valid or recognized in Nebraska." Plaintiffs challenged the law under the United States Constitution as a violation of the Equal Protection Clause and the prohibition on Bills of Attainder.
Texas Chooses Intolerance over Harsher Bigotry
June 30, 2005
This past session, Texas legislators looked into the abyss and then turned away. But only barely. Texas teetered on the verge of becoming the only state to ban gays, lesbians, and bisexuals from serving as foster parents before the Senate pulled back from an amendment to legislation pending in the Statehouse. Instead of staining Texas as the most intolerant state in the union with regard to the rights of its gay and bisexual citizens, Texas legislators chose merely to give its voters the choice of amending the Texas Constitution to ban civil unions for gay Texans.
News Briefs
June 30, 2005
Important information you need to know.
Case Updates
June 30, 2005
Recent rulings of interest to you and your practice.
Marriage and the Transgendered Person
June 30, 2005
In last month's newsletter, we discussed two 1970s New York decisions that held marriages between transsexuals and persons of their birth sex to be invalid. No recent cases on this issue have been brought in New York, so we are left to ponder what would be the outcomes of those cases in present-day New York. Recently, however, the Florida Court of Appeal relied on those old New York cases -- Frances B. v. Mark B.</i>, 78 Misc. 2d 112 (1974) and <i>Anonymous v. Anonymous</i>, 67 Misc. 2d 982 (1971) -- when it decided that marriage in Florida between a female-to-male transsexual and woman was invalid at its inception. In light of recent social trends in the State of New York, was that reliance justified?
Introduction
June 30, 2005
In divorce situations, nothing -- not even the question of who gets the house -- can compare to the importance of the question of how custody of the children will be worked out. Some lucky families will be able to work together toward the optimum solution for all concerned, with a willingness to be flexible that will keep the arrangement working smoothly for years. Other parents, however, will be at odds, due to real concerns for the children and the parents' relationship with them, or even from sheer animosity toward one another. In this special issue focusing on custody, we look at the some things all parents in custody battles should consider as well as some things that will affect only a smaller percentage of parents.
How to Represent the Non-Biological Parent in a Custody Fight
June 30, 2005
Representing the non-biological parent in a custody dispute today is an uphill struggle. There are only three classes of people under New York statutory law who may seek custody of or visitation with children: parents, siblings, and grandparents (DRL '' 70-72). All others have no standing. And under current case law, biological strangers are legal strangers.
