Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Florida's Statutory Cap on Non-Economic Damages Deemed Unconstitutional
Two years passed from the time the Florida Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Estate of McCall v. United States of America, 2014 Fla. LEXIS 933 (Fla. Mar. 13, 2014), until announcement of its decision on March 13, 2014. During that time, multiple parties filed amicus curiae briefs on both sides of the case, developing an appellate record that reflected a broader controversy on which numerous appellate courts had reached markedly different conclusions. To review, Mrs. McCall was a military dependent who died in childbirth. The constitutionality of limits on medical malpractice awards, one of the benchmarks of conservative tort reform, had divided state and federal courts across the country.
Dissenting in the McCall decision, Chief Justice Ricky Polston cited decisions in the Third, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Ninth and Eleventh Circuits that upheld limitations on noneconomic damages in medical malpractice cases against equal protection challenges. Joining this group were state court rulings from California, Michigan, Missouri, Virginia and West Virginia. Standing with the McCall ruling in Florida are precedential decisions in Georgia, Illinois and Washington, among others. The McCall court had ample precedent on which to base its decision, but the course taken by the majority decision advanced significantly beyond the boundaries established in previously reported cases.
The Court's Analysis
This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
- Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
- Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts
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
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
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
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.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
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.
Legal Possession: What Does It Mean?
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.
The Stranger to the Deed Rule
In 1987, a unanimous Court of Appeals reaffirmed the vitality of the "stranger to the deed" rule, which holds that if a grantor executes a deed to a grantee purporting to create an easement in a third party, the easement is invalid. Daniello v. Wagner, decided by the Second Department on November 29th, makes it clear that not all grantors (or their lawyers) have received the Court of Appeals' message, suggesting that the rule needs re-examination.