Appellate Justices, Be Careful When You Surf
Friday, October 31st, 2008Original post by LexisNexis® Mealey’sâ„¢ Legal News
Original post by LexisNexis® Mealey’sâ„¢ Legal News
Original post by LexisNexis® Mealey’sâ„¢ Legal News
Original post by LexisNexis® Mealey’sâ„¢ Legal News
Original post by LexisNexis® Mealey’sâ„¢ Legal News
Given escalating volumes of ESI and the general impatience of courts with e-discovery mistakes, counsel and their clients soon may have no choice but to move beyond traditional Boolean search techniques. Courts have already put practitioners on notice of this emerging obligation.
Original post by LexisNexis® Mealey’sâ„¢ Legal News
Original post by LexisNexis® Mealey’sâ„¢ Legal News
Original post by LexisNexis® Mealey’sâ„¢ Legal News
Original post by LexisNexis® Mealey’sâ„¢ Legal News
MINNNEAPOLIS - No coverage is afforded for an underlying complaint seeking damages caused by the installation of spyware on a claimant’s computer because the installation of the software was not a wrongful act, a federal judge said Oct. 7, noting that the insured intentionally placed the spyware on the computer (Eyeblaster, Inc. v. Federal Insurance […]
COLUMBUS, Ohio - Ohio’s asbestos litigation legislation makes only procedural changes regarding prioritization of claims and defines the procedural framework used to handle claims, a divided Ohio Supreme Court held Oct. 15 (Linda Ackison v. Anchor Packing Co., et al., Nos. 2007-0219, 2007-0415 [consolidated], Ohio Sup.; See 10/04/07, Page 6).
Full story on lexis.com
Original post by […]