Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
In a short and succinct amended final judgment in the Massachusetts case of Cote-Whitacre v. Dept. of Public Health, Civ Action No. 04-2656-G (Superior Court, Suffolk Cty.), Justice Thomas E. Connolly clarified for New York same-sex couples married in Massachusetts that those whose nuptials took place before July 6, 2006 are still married in the eyes of the State of Massachusetts.
The Case
The case came before the court again because the original Cote-Whitacre decision had upheld Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney's application of a law enacted in 1913 prohibiting couples from out of state to marry in Massachusetts if their home states would not allow them to marry in those home states. Many New York and other states' couples had traveled to Massachusetts to be married once Massachusetts opened up the institution of marriage to same-sex partners. They were then left uncertain as to whether their marriages were valid after the 1913 law (M.G.L. c. 207 ' 12) was invoked.
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?