Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Expert Witnesses: Observing the Limits of Expertise
In 2013, Timothy M. Tippins, a member of this newsletter's Board of Editors, opined, in a New York Law Journal column, that there was an “urgent need for the legal system to impose mandatory and enforceable standards of performance upon those mental health professionals who offer potentially life-altering opinions in the custody court” (The Bar Won't Raise Itself: The Case for Evaluation Standards, July 8, 2013). A year later, writing again for the same ALM publication, Tippins opined that “[a]ll involved must be accountable, and accountability requires standards of performance” (Custody Evaluations: The Quest for Quality, July 3, 2014). Though these articles addressed the work of custody evaluators, life-altering opinions are also being offered by file reviewers (work product reviewers), some of whom seem to be oblivious to, or unconcerned about, the inherent limitations of a file reviewer's data.
In the relatively short period of time between 1993 and 1999, The Supreme Court of the United States addressed the issue of expert testimony in three cases. In Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993), the proffered (and rejected) expert opinion was that Bendectin, prescribed for the management of nausea and vomiting in pregnancy, was teratogenic. In General Electric Co. v. Joiner, 522 U.S. 136 (1997), alleged workplace exposure to carcinogens was at issue, and, here too, proffered expert testimony was ruled inadmissible. Kumho Tire v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137 (1999), was a product liability case, and the product analysis conducted by the plaintiff's expert was deemed to be unreliable.
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
Beach Boys Songs Written Decades Ago Triggered Current Quarrel With Lawyers
There's current litigation in the ongoing Beach Boys litigation saga. A lawsuit filed in 2019 against Nevada residents Mike Love and his wife Jacquelyne in the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada that alleges inaccurate payment by the Loves under the retainer agreement and seeks $84.5 million in damages.
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.
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.
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.
Transfer Tax Implications on Real Property Leases
The real property transfer tax does not apply to all leases, and understanding the tax rules of the applicable jurisdiction can allow parties to plan ahead to avoid unnecessary tax liability.