Yesterday, I spoke at a continuing legal education conference for the Georgia Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers.
The Florida Supreme Court Clarifies What Rule to Apply When There Are Multiple Causes of Loss Under an All-Risk Policy
On December 1, 2016, the Florida Supreme Court decided Sebo v. American Home Assurance Company, Inc.,1 resolving whether coverage existed under an all-risk policy when there were multiple causes of loss and at least one of the causes was excluded, in favor of the insured.
Today the U.S. Supreme Court decided to review the Federal Circuit’s decision regarding international patent exhaustion in Impression Products, Inc. v. Lexmark Int’l, Inc.
The recent election reminded me of a brush that I had with election-related appeals.
Yesterday, in Linglong Americas, Inc. v. Horizon Tire, Inc., a unanimous panel of the Sixth Circuit rejected a tire manufacturer’s attempt to compel arbitration of claims in China under a contract that had already expired.
Yesterday, we reviewed the California Supreme Court’s experience with amicus curiae briefs in civil cases between 2008 and 2015.
In a recent decision, the Fifth Circuit ruled in favor of Markel American Insurance Company in a D&O liability coverage dispute centering on the application of the policy’s “Creditor Exclusion.”
Last week, a 2-1 split panel on the US Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed the lower court’s dismissal of U.S. ex rel. Harper, et al. v. Muskingum Watershed Conservancy District, Case No. 15-4406 (6th Cir. Nov. 21, 2016).
A trial court may not rely on a legal opinion offered by a party’s expert witness. Florida’s Third District recently reversed dismissal of a mortgage foreclosure action based on this rule in Citibank, N.A., v. Martin and Jitka Olsak, 3rd DCA Case No. 3D15-1032 (Nov. 30, 2016).
All Play and No Work: TN Body Clarifies When Recreational Activities Are Covered Under Worker’s Comp Law
Since the early 1930s, the Tennessee Supreme Court has consistently ruled that an employee’s injury during voluntary recreational activity is not compensable as a work-related accident.