Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
In a first-of-its-kind case, Hartford (CT) Superior Court Judge Linda Pearce Prestley has told two Connecticut women seeking to annul a civil marriage they filed with the clerk of Provincetown, MA, that both states view their attempt to wed as legally void from the start. In a 10-page decision issued March 18, Prestley determined that Connecticut courts have no jurisdiction to rule in such a case, because the state legislature has so far deemed same-sex marriage as against public policy. The case is Lane v. Albanese.
The Case
Prestley noted that the plaintiff, named simply “Lane,” and defendant Anita Ann Albanese claim they were unaware their Connecticut residency presented a legal impediment to Massachusetts's same-sex marriage. She cited a Massachusetts law that states, “No marriage shall be contracted in this commonwealth by a party residing and intending to continue to reside in another jurisdiction if such marriage would be void if contracted in such other jurisdiction.”
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.
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.
UCC Sections 9406(d) and 9408(a) are one of the most powerful, yet least understood, sections of the Uniform Commercial Code. On their face, they appear to override anti-assignment provisions in agreements that would limit the grant of a security interest. But do these sections really work?