martindale.com
Legal Library
|
Search Results (901) Documents on Appellate Practice, Legal Management Show: results per page Sort by:  | Ontario Court of Appeal Confirms Limitation Period for Rescission Actions Under Ontario’s Franchise Legislation
Derek Ronde; Cassels Brock & Blackwell LLP;
Legal Alert/Article July 14, 2012, previously published on July 12, 2012 The Ontario Court of Appeal recently heard an appeal of a decision Cassels discussed in its February 2012 e-Communique, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice decision in 2130489 Ontario Inc. v. Philthy McNasty’s (Enterprises) Inc. (2011 ONSC 6852). In the lower court decision, the court...
|  | Appellee's Brief
William C. Fanning; Devine & Fanning, P.A.;
Court Document July 3, 2012 This Brief was filed in the Maryland Court of Special Appeals by partner William C. Fanning, Jr., who also successfully argued the case before the three judge panel led by Chief Judge Murphy.
| | Ninth Circuit Rejects “Selective Waiver” of Attorney-Client Privilege
Krystal N. Bowen, Charlene S. Shimada, Lucy Wang; Bingham McCutchen LLP;
Legal Alert/Article April 24, 2012, previously published on April 24, 2012 On April 17, 2012, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled in In re Pacific Pictures Corporation that a party may not selectively waive attorney-client privilege by voluntarily producing privileged materials to the government while maintaining the privilege in civil litigation.
| | New Pennsylvania Rules Require Immediate Appeals in Matters Involving Trusts, Charities, and Other Proceedings Heard by Pennsylvania Orphans’ Courts
Carl A. Solano; Schnader Harrison Segal & Lewis LLP;
Legal Alert/Article March 2, 2012, previously published on February 2012 On February 13, 2012, new amendments to the Pennsylvania Rules of Appellate Procedure took effect and made substantial changes to the right to appeal from orders entered by Pennsylvania’s Orphans’ Courts. The Orphans’ Court Divisions of the Pennsylvania Courts of Common Pleas have...
| | Fatal and Sanctionable: Filing an Untimely Anti-SLAPP Motion
Jens B. Koepke; Morris Polich & Purdy LLP;
Legal Alert/Article February 23, 2012, previously published on February 21, 2012 Not only can filing an anti-SLAPP motion more than 60 days after service of the complaint kill your motion, it might even result in sanctions against you. A recent state appellate court decision appears to sharpen the teeth in the 60-day filing requirement in Section 425.16(f).
| | Mississippi Appellate Court Upholds Standing of Excess Insurer To Sue Defense Counsel
Terrence P. McAvoy; Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP;
Legal Alert/Article February 16, 2012, previously published on February 15, 2012 In a case of first impression in Mississippi, an appellate court held that an excess insurer has standing to sue defense counsel retained to defend the insured.
| | First State Attorney General Action Under HITECH
Robyn Sterling; Proskauer Rose LLP;
Legal Alert/Article February 14, 2012, previously published on February 14, 2012 On January 19, 2012, Minnesota Attorney General Lori Swanson exercised her authority under the HITECH Act by filing a lawsuit against a business associate for the failure to protect protected health information (PHI) and for the failure to disclose the extent to which PHI was utilized. The case...
| | Despite Supreme Court’s Critical Language, Expert Testimony in Legal Malpractice Case Required on Standard of Care
Terrence P. McAvoy; Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP;
Legal Alert/Article February 2, 2012, previously published on February 1, 2012 The Supreme Court of Connecticut held that despite its critical language of defendants (plaintiff client’s former attorneys) for violating basic rules of appellate procedure, the former client was still required to present expert testimony in his legal malpractice action to establish the...
| | Reducing Risks Without Lawyers
Glenn Feldmann Darby Goodlatte A Professional Corporation;
Legal Alert/Article January 30, 2012, previously published by Roanoke Star Sentinel “The first thing we do, let’s kill all of the lawyers.” This phrase from Shakespeare’s King Henry VI has been used in modern times to express contempt for lawyers. Dick the Butcher in Shakespeare’s play, however, spoke this phrase in the context of exterminating...
| | A Clearly Drafted Engagement Letter Can Limit the Scope of Attorney’s Duties
Roy E. Pulvers; Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP;
Legal Alert/Article January 23, 2012, previously published on January 19, 2012 In a legal malpractice case, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana granted a law firm’s motion for summary judgment. The court found that the firm’s clearly drafted engagement letter successfully provided a defense to the client’s allegations that the firm...
|
|