Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%

Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.

Search


IRS Tweaks Rules for Patent Donations
January 01, 2004
Companies are set to lose millions of dollars in tax write-offs from donating their patents to universities and nonprofit groups.
Poppy Seed or Onion?
January 01, 2004
Unusual case: Is a bagel a weapon?
Forfeiture Provision of Voluntary Stock Not Illegal
January 01, 2004
New York's highest court has issued an important decision interpreting Section 193 of the New York Labor Law, which prohibits employers from making deductions from an employee's wages except in limited circumstances.
John Gaal's Ethics Corner
January 01, 2004
Your ethics questions answered by the expert.
Disparate Impact and Disparate Treatment Analysis
January 01, 2004
The United States Supreme Court rebuked a Ninth Circuit panel for misapplying disparate impact analysis in the context of a disparate treatment case when the lower court ruled that a recovered drug addict could not be denied reemployment under the terms of the employer's no-rehire rule. In doing so, the Supreme Court determined that, in fact, a no-rehire rule is a "quintessential legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for refusing an employee who was terminated because of misconduct."
Extensive Amendments to Federal Rules Governing Class Actions
January 01, 2004
Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure was recently amended extensively to add two new sections governing the appointment of class counsel and the payment of attorney fee awards.
Decisions of Interest
January 01, 2004
Recent rulings of importance to your practice.
Alleged Employee Wrongdoing
January 01, 2004
On Dec. 4, 2003, President Bush signed into the law the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act of 2003 (FACT), Pub. L. No. 108-159, 117 Stat. 1952 (2003), amending 15 U.S.C. &sect; 1681a, <i>et. seq.</i>, and reauthorizing and amending the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA).
What Were They Thinking ... ?
January 01, 2004
Editor-in-Chief Alfred G. Feliu shakes his head in disbelief.
Developments of Note
January 01, 2004
Recent developments in e-commerce law and in the e-commerce industry.

MOST POPULAR STORIES

  • 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.
    Read More ›
  • 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.
    Read More ›
  • 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.
    Read More ›
  • 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.
    Read More ›
  • The Unlicensed Real Estate Broker in New York: Beware
    The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York recently determined that because New York prohibits unlicensed real estate brokers from pursuing payment in its courts for services rendered, a plaintiff who performed real estate work for a client who then did not pay had no standing to sue.
    Read More ›