This site uses cookies to improve your experience. To help us insure we adhere to various privacy regulations, please select your country/region of residence. If you do not select a country, we will assume you are from the United States. Select your Cookie Settings or view our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.
Cookie Settings
Cookies and similar technologies are used on this website for proper function of the website, for tracking performance analytics and for marketing purposes. We and some of our third-party providers may use cookie data for various purposes. Please review the cookie settings below and choose your preference.
Used for the proper function of the website
Used for monitoring website traffic and interactions
Cookie Settings
Cookies and similar technologies are used on this website for proper function of the website, for tracking performance analytics and for marketing purposes. We and some of our third-party providers may use cookie data for various purposes. Please review the cookie settings below and choose your preference.
Strictly Necessary: Used for the proper function of the website
Performance/Analytics: Used for monitoring website traffic and interactions
In the answer that it filed on November 13, Condé Nast argues – by way of seventeen affirmative defenses – that the model plaintiffs’ remaining causes of action against it should be dismissed. The case is Champion et al., Moda Operandi, Advance Publications d/b/a/ Conde Nast , 1:20-cv-07255 (SDNY).
A 25-person legal technology company in California is fighting back against one of the world’s largest law firms in a lawsuit over ownership rights to legislation-drafting software that each side says was its idea. This litigation should be a warning to all innovative legal technology providers.”. Series of Meetings.
Each month, Arnold & Porter and the Sabin Center for Climate Change Law collect and summarize developments in climate-related litigation, which we also add to our U.S. climate litigation charts. On November 23, GM announced that it was withdrawing from the litigation. By Margaret Barry and Korey Silverman-Roati.
The causes of action in the suit include strict product liability and negligence, and specifically addresses the following questions of law: whether Facebook (i.e. .” The core of this Complaint is similar in that it accuses Facebook of putting “market penetration” and profits before the lives of the Rohingya people.
The case is unique for a number of reasons – it is the first climate damages case against fossil fuel companies filed in Puerto Rico, the first climate case against fossil fuel companies alleging harms against cities as a class of plaintiffs, and the first climate case to include Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) claims.
Each month, Arnold & Porter and the Sabin Center for Climate Change Law collect and summarize developments in climate-related litigation, which we also add to our U.S. climate litigation charts. The Ninth Circuit also found that modification of the injunction due to EPA’s rulemaking action did not threaten separation of powers.
We organize all of the trending information in your field so you don't have to. Join 99,000+ users and stay up to date on the latest articles your peers are reading.
You know about us, now we want to get to know you!
Let's personalize your content
Let's get even more personalized
We recognize your account from another site in our network, please click 'Send Email' below to continue with verifying your account and setting a password.
Let's personalize your content