JayS.Rothman&Associates
MAY 17, 2023
Where the statute doesn’t directly prohibit associational retaliation, courts have also given broad interpretations that favor protection for the associates of whistleblowers. Generally, courts impose a similar burden on associational discrimination cases as they do under other discrimination cases.
At the Lectern
SEPTEMBER 20, 2021
Last week, the Legislature sent to the Governor a bill — SB 775 — that would amend the statute. The bill says that it “[c]odifies the holdings of People v. Lewis (2021) 11 Cal.5th
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Day on Torts
OCTOBER 3, 2022
Defendant filed a petition for dismissal pursuant to the TPPA, and after finding that the TPPA applied, that plaintiff was a limited-purpose public figure in the context of this action, and that plaintiff “had not established a prima facie case for actual malice,” the trial court dismissed the case. The TPPA, Tenn.
Day on Torts
NOVEMBER 15, 2022
The Court of Appeals explained that although the TPPA is a relatively new statute, case law has established “two general conclusions” regarding the proper procedure when a motion to dismiss is filed thereunder. The TPPA, a relatively new statute, continues to be more defined as additional cases are litigated and appealed thereunder.
Day on Torts
JANUARY 11, 2022
Where plaintiff had filed complaints with the Board of Professional Responsibility (BPR) complaining of the same allegations that allegedly supported her legal malpractice claim, and those BPR complaints were filed more than one year before the legal malpractice suit was filed, summary judgment based on the statute of limitations was affirmed.
Patently O
JUNE 1, 2021
Any practice by the inventor and applicant for a patent through which he deliberately and without excuse postpones beyond the date of the actual invention, the beginning of the term of his monopoly, and thus puts off the free public enjoyment of the useful invention, is an evasion of the statute and defeats its benevolent aim. Woodbridge.
At the Lectern
MAY 19, 2022
” The dissent asserted the defendant had made a prima facie case of, and was thus entitled to a hearing on, racial discrimination in charging Black defendants with felony-murder special circumstance penalty enhancements in Orange County. The court declined to hear People v.
Expert insights. Personalized for you.
98 
Let's personalize your content