Developmental negotiation involves a plan and execution of the development of all five stages to maximize the likelihood of a beneficial outcome. The…
Virtually every lawyer is familiar with the rules versus standards trade-off. Rules provide clearer guidance but sometimes produce bad results (i.e. “loopholes”). Standards provide more flexibility but at the cost of diminishing ex ante notice. For a high level court such as the Supreme Court, the degree of specificity with which to announce a doctrine—and, correspondingly, the amount of discretion to leave to lower courts to develop the doctrine in future cases—typically involves the basic tradeoff between ex ante notice and ex post flexibility.
On July 26, 2014, the District Court for the District of Columbia granted summary judgment to plaintiffs in Palmer v. District of Columbia, No. 1:09-CV-1482.
On July 19, 2014, the Ninth Circuit held in Wood v. Ryan, No. 14-16310 (9th Cir. 07/19/2014) that Wood, an inmate facing execution on July 23, legitimately sought information from the Arizona Department of Corrections regarding the nature of the drugs to be used for his lethal injection, their manner of injection, and the qualifications of those administering those drugs.
Recent decisions of the Commercial Division of the Supreme Court, New York County, address the standards for pleading a fraudulent conveyance and a double derivative action.
Same-sex couples are asking themselves whether they should marry and, if so, how will marriage impact the existing rules that they established for their relationship. Practical tips for advising these clients.
As someone who started her legal career as a litigator, I, like many other litigators, viewed mandatory mediation with both skepticism and some suspicion.
Halbig v. Burwell, No.14-5018 (D.C. Cir. 07/22/14) states its conclusion plainly. Section 36B of the Internal Revenue Code, part of the ACA makes tax credits available as a form of subsidy for those who purchase health from insurance exchanges “which are “established by the State . . .” (26 U.S.C. section 36B(c)(2)(A)(i)) These credits were awarded those with household incomes between 100% and 400% of the federal poverty line. (26 U.S.C. section 36B(c)(1)(A))
This Article discusses the recent Florida verdict awarding $23 billion to a widow because her husband died of lung cancer caused by cigarettes.
What cybersecurity lessons did Target learn from its massive data breach?