Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Question for FL High Court: Is Attorney Fee Cap Permissible?
Florida's Fourth District Court of Appeal has asked the Florida Supreme Court to decide whether attorney fees in an unusual medical malpractice case should remain severely limited by a law passed specifically for the benefit of that case's plaintiff.
The case involved a 1997 birth injury that resulted in severe brain damage to the child. In 1999, law firm Searcy Denney Scarola Barnhart & Shipley took the case after several other law firms passed on it, presumably because the injury occurred at a public hospital, and Florida law limits recovery from public hospitals to $200,000 in medical malpractice cases. The case went to trial, where a jury awarded the child $28.3 million and his parents $2.3 million. Searcy and Denney and other lobbyists then convinced the state legislature to pass a private relief act that exempted the injured child and his family from the damages cap. Legislators added something to the bill, however, before passing it into law: a $100,000 cap on attorney and lobbyist fees. If the State Supreme Court decides to hear the issue of whether that litigation and lobbying cap is constitutional, its resolution is expected to take at least a year. “If this [provision] is allowed to stand, no wrongfully injured victim of medical malpractice in a special-district hospital will ever be able to get a lawyer to represent them,” Christian Searcy, president and CEO of Searcy Denney, told reporters for the Daily Business Review. He added, “They have a hard enough time already.”
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.
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.
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?
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.