The recent Eleventh Circuit decision in Cappuccitti v.

Read more:
Guest Post: More Musings on Cappuccitti from Eleventh Circuit Practitioners Eric Jon Taylor and Jon Chally

In The Expert Nurse Witness, Ellen K. Murphy writes: A nurse who is asked to consult or testify must approach the agreement with the retaining attorney as he or she would any other contract

More here:
The Nursing Expert Witness Part 2

He who made a gross miscalculation of the amount of damages (as a scare tactic) in Spencer v Hartford and “made” associate law professor Adam Scales “a household name”, is now so emboldened by the proposed settlement to suggest that such case be “prostituted” and used as a threat to scare defendants into 468B trusts. It's not like we haven't seen the scare tactic before. Look at the cottage industry that sprung up after Grillo v Pettiete et al. Cause No.96-145090-92 and Grillo v Henry Cause 96-167943-96, 96th District Court, Tarrant County, TX, whereafter plaintiff attorneys were lobbied by certain advisers over the perceived threat of legal malpractice.

Read the rest here:
Spencer v Hartford Begats "468B Risk Management" Panacea for Defendants from Plaintiff Advisors?

On March 2, 2010, the Second District (Division 3) published its opinion, issued last week, in Pfizer Inc., v. Superior Court, __ Cal.App.4th (2010).

Read this article:
Second District Publishes Opinion Reversing Certification of Listerine False Advertisement Class: Pfizer Inc., v. Superior Court

Recently, Mark McGwire came out with an admission that many people were shocked to hear. He had taken steroids from 1989 through the end of his career, despite his unwillingness to speak on the issue during a congressional hearing five years ago.

What may have been more interesting is the fact that McGwire claims to have used these drugs not simply as a means of getting ahead. McGwire says he took steroids because he believed that they would help him heal from injuries more quickly.

This seems very believable when you look at the career path that McGwire followed. Through 1989, his playing time had been seriously hampered due to injury, and many felt that he would otherwise be the best home run hitter in baseball if not for his injury issues.

What followed in the years to come was exactly what one would expect. He was healthier through the majority of the remainder of his career, and his offensive production was exceptional.

No year was more indicative of his steroid use than 1998 was. This is a year that you very likely remember, as he belted 70 home runs for the St. Louis Cardinals, breaking the single season home record previously held by Roger Maris.

Just a few short years later, a few steroid allegations by Jose Canseco and some admissions by others shocked and devastated baseball fans. Many began to speculate that McGwire was under the influence of these illegal substances too.

Many now realize that the writing was on the wall this whole time. How could a player in his mid 30s suddenly hit more home runs than ever before? How could others like Barry Bonds and Sammy Sosa hit even more? We all should have known better.

Many wonder if McGwire’s recent confession should warrant consideration for the Hall of Fame. While he has failed to make it during the last few seasons, he’s been bold enough to publicly admit what many had already suspected.

Read more of this author’s articles about the wooden bar stool and wooden step stool.

For those following the complicated twists and turns of litigation over California Ballot Proposition 8, which amended the California Constitution to provide that only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California, the litigation about that measure continues. Today, the Ninth Circuit, in Perry, et al.

Go here to read the rest:
California Proposition 8 elicits constitution-based, discovery rights opinion from Ninth Circuit

In Landreth v. Malik, the Nevada Supreme Court held that the family courts do not have jurisdiction to hear disputes over property ownership between unmarried couples. Here, the dispute involved a claim that the funds used to purchase and renovate a home in Nevada were joint funds of a couple who had cohabited, but never married. The Court’s ruling was based on the jurisdictional grant set forth in NRS 3.223, which does not include an action of the type here. The statute is pretty straight forward.

Read the original post:
Family Court has no jurisdiction over property dispute of cohabiting couples.

In Stephens Media v.

Here is the original post:
Jury questionnaires public records

On December 31, 2009, the First District issued an interesting opinion relating to whether a trial court may properly strike a class settlement provision providing that the amount of class counsel’s fee award would be resolved by private arbitration. The opinion, styled Cellphone Termination Fee Cases, __ Cal. App.

Link:
First District Rules that Trial Court Erred by Striking Class Settlement Provision Requiring Amount of Fee Award Be Decided by Private Arbitrator:…