Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Rule 408 Applies to Criminal Cases, Says Tenth Circuit
In a Matter of First Impression, the Tenth Circuit Rules that Rule 408 Applies in the Criminal Context, But Holds That Erroneous Admission of Testimony Relating to Settlement Was Not Plain Error. United States v. Bailey, 327 F.3d 1131 (10th Cir. 2003)
A panel of the Tenth Circuit, in a matter of first impression in the circuit, held that Rule 408 of the Federal Rules of Evidence applies to both criminal and civil proceedings to bar a party from introducing evidence of a settlement.
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
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.
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.
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.
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?