Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
What is it about the people who serve on juries? One group recently decided that a Philadelphia restaurant should pay more than $100,000 to Amber Carson after she slipped on a wet floor and broke her tailbone. The award was not necessarily unreasonable ' except when one considers that the floor was wet because the plaintiff, fighting with her boyfriend, had tossed a drink at him seconds before she fell!
A different collection of peers decided that Terrence Dickson of Bristol, PA, was entitled to about $500,000 to compensate him for mental anguish. The jury's award in this dispute might have been supportable, but the plaintiff claimed that he had suffered his injuries after robbing the home of a family on vacation ' and getting locked in the garage for more than a week, surviving only on soda and dog food!
Relax, reader. Although the use of plaintiffs' names and hometowns, and the addition of just enough interesting detail, give the stories at least a slight smell of truth, they are fake, fake, fake. Fiction. False. These two cases never happened.
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?