Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
The Supreme Court's April 7 ruling on punitive damages, greeted with relief and enthusiasm by corporate defendants, opens new battlegrounds in litigation seeking those awards. The ruling significantly expanded the High Court's prior attempts to guide lower courts and lawyers on when punitive damages awards may run afoul of the Constitution. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Campbell, No. 01-1289.
The 6-3 decision in State Farm threw out a $145 million punitive damages award won by Curtis Campbell in a bad-faith action against the auto insurer. Compensatory damages totaled $1 million.
“This is not the end,” said Lori S. Nugent, head of the punitive damages practice in the Chicago office of Cozen O'Connor. “Justice Scalia was absolutely right when he said that there will be many decisions in the future on punitive damages. And there should be.”
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
In Rockwell v. Despart, the New York Supreme Court, Third Department, recently revisited a recurring question: When may a landowner seek judicial removal of a covenant restricting use of her land?
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.