Case Notes
Highlights of the latest product liability cases from around the country.
Psychological Disorders: Understanding the Criteria for Admissibility of Expert Opinion
Psychologists, psychiatrists, and licensed social workers routinely testify as experts in both criminal and civil cases in which the mental condition of an individual is at issue. While the credentials and qualifications of such experts may not always be subject to challenge, the reliability and relevance of their proffered testimony should be examined closely. Regardless of the conclusion generated, the inquiry into a mental health professional's opinion must be one that looks to the principles and methods used, not the ultimate conclusion reached. <i>Daubert v. Merrill Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc.,</i> 509 U.S. 579, 595 (1993).
EPA Documents Are Available Online
If you are involved in litigation concerning a substance regulated by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the agency has a Web site where you can review dockets and documents: <i>http://cascade.epa.gov/RightSite/dk_public_home.htm.</i> EPA Dockets (EDOCKET) is an online public docket and comment system designed to expand access to documents in the EPA's major dockets. Dockets contain Federal Register notices, support documents, and public comments for regulations the Agency publishes and various nonregulatory activities.
<i>SCO v. IBM</i>: Does the Copyright Act Pre-empt The GPL?
Open-source software is a key e-commerce building block. For example, Apache, the world's most popular Web-server software, is open source. A lawsuit filed this year threatens not only the Linux operating system, but also the open-source license under which it is made available. This article addresses one of the legal theories attacking that license.
Verdicts
The latest rulings of importance to you and your practice.
Supreme Court Clarifies Standard of Proof for Mixed-Motive Discrimination Cases
At the conclusion of its most recent 2002-2003 term, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a decision clarifying plaintiffs' standard of proof in "mixed-motive" employment discrimination cases under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended by the Civil Rights Act of 1991. In <i>Desert Palace, Inc. v. Costa</i>, the Court held that a plaintiff is required to prove by direct evidence that an unlawful factor was a "motivating factor" in the challenged adverse employment action. Instead, a plaintiff can prove his or her discrimination claim in a mixed-motive case by circumstantial evidence. As a result of this decision, defendants will find it more difficult to obtain summary judgment dismissing mixed-motive discrimination cases prior to trial, the result of which will be that more such cases will be subjected to the uncertainties of jury trials.
