New York Court of Appeals Roundup
I n the three decisions that we address this month, the Court of Appeals was, atypically, divided. In each case, the majority and dissenting opinions engaged in spirited discussion of the other`s analysis. In a criminal appeal, the Court upheld (4-3) traffic stops made after a Vehicle & Traffic Law violation is observed but for the purpose of investigating other suspected wrongdoing. In a malpractice action, the Court held (6-1) that defendants were collaterally estopped by the result in a separate litigatiHumans Rights Group Enlists Firms to Monitor War Crimes
With only four lawyers besides herself to monitor and analyze jurisprudence and courtroom policy in historic trials of dictators accused of monstrous crimes, Elise Keppler called for help at two large Manhattan law firms whose volunteer attorneys now occupy seats on a stage the whole world is watching. Ms. Keppler, senior counsel for the International Justice Program at Human Rights Watch, forged pro bono partnerships - first with Weil, Gotshal & Manges in early 2007, then with Stroock & Stroock & Lavan in January - in the cause of justice through the International Criminal Court at The Hague.Ex-Dewey Partners, Bank Square Off Over $71 Million Settlement Proposal
In a rash of filings on Sept. 13 made before a late-afternoon deadline, several parties connected to Dewey & LeBoeuf came out either for or against a proposed settlement plan that would collect $71 million from ex-Dewey partners in exchange for a release from Dewey-related liability.Attendance Requirements Raise Americans With Disabilities Act Issues
In their Employment Law column, Jeffrey S. Klein and Nicholas J. Pappas, partners at Weil, Gotshal & Manges, write that courts have demonstrated a willingness to look at employers' written job descriptions and the realities of particular workplaces to evaluate whether attendance is indeed an essential job function.When New Data Gives Way to Claims Over Old Contamination
Steven C. Russo, a partner at Sive, Paget & Riesel, and Ashley S. Miller, an associate at the firm, discuss Aiken v. General Electric Co., where residents were allowed to maintain claims for property damage over alleged toxic vapors in soil seeping into their homes, even though the source of the vapors - contaminated groundwater underneath the homes - had been publicly known for upwards of two decades.Troopers' Trickery In Searching Cars Ruled Constitutional
Trending Stories
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250