Featured Videos

This suit was surfaced by Law.com Radar, ALM’s source for immediate alerting on just-filed cases in state and federal courts. Law.com Radar now offers state court coverage nationwide. Sign up today and be the first to know about new suits in your region, practice area or client sector.        

Israel is currently home to many companies and individuals working in legal tech. Legaltech News recently checked in with some of them to discuss how they continue to innovate in times of war.        

The court concluded that the defendants failed to allege sufficient facts to withstand the motion to dismiss, and allowed the plaintiff Dubliner’s motion.        

“I think what employers would really like from the Legislature is more certainty. Not making laws that, to figure out what it means, you have to go to litigation,” David A. Rapuano, a partner with Archer & Greiner, said. “To me, and to my clients, it is bad policy to create laws that cannot be […]

“From our reading of Mr. Vandergriff’s complaint, several of the alleged actions and inactions that constituted the purported medical malpractice in the present case occurred after [April 14],” the appeals judge wrote. “The statute of limitations does not serve as bar to his lawsuit as to those incidents because Mr. Vandergriff filed his lawsuit within […]

“I think premises liability issues are going to be really big going forward,” former chief justice Harold Melton said.        

Applying the rising technology to client-facing work may be a fraught discussion, but firms can look to incorporate it in other areas of their operations.        

Plaintiffs’ lawyers plan to ask a federal judge on Monday to approve as much as $150 million in fees tied to settlements with Juul Labs Inc. over the vaping epidemic.        

Tracking Key Shifts in the Legal Ecosystem Each week, the Law.com Barometer newsletter, powered by the ALM Global Newsroom        

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit rejected three police officers’ qualified immunity defenses. The court determined it was clearly established that police cannot shoot nonlethal projectiles at protesters who committed no serious crime, were not a threat, and were not attempting to flee.