Supreme Court of California rules that corporation can recover fees for in-house counselBy Michael Todd ScottCorporate Law Departments, June 2000
On May 8, 2000 the Supreme Court of California held that a corporation that is represented by in-house counsel may recover attorney fees under Civil Code § 1717. The case is PLCM v. Drexler, and can be found on the Web at: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/data2/californiastatecases/S080201.PDF.
Unauthorized practice of law and in-house counselBy Michael Todd ScottCorporate Law Departments, June 2000There has been a lot of discussion lately on unauthorized practice of law (UPL) by in-house counsel.
Fifth District holds that corporation not liable for employee’s alienation-of-affection actionsBy Michael Todd ScottCorporate Law Departments, May 2000In Hargan v. Southwestern Electric Cooperative, Inc., No. 5-99-0010 (5th Dist. 3/2/00), the plaintiff appealed from the trial court's dismissal of his second amended complaint for alienation of affection. The Fifth District affirmed.
Illinois Appellate Court adopts the Adverse Domination DoctrineBy Michael Todd ScottCorporate Law Departments, May 2000In Lease Resolution Corp. v. Larney, No 1-98-2569 (9/23/99), plaintiffs, the successor general partner of a limited partnership and the limited partnership, appeal from the dismissal of their complaint.
Letter from the editorBy Michael Todd ScottCorporate Law Departments, December 1999This is the third edition of The Corporate Lawyer for the 1999-2000 year, and we are on track of meeting our goal of bringing you six editions this year.
Seventh Circuit holds that an employee can be liable for a corporation’s discovery abuseBy Michael Todd ScottCorporate Law Departments, December 1999In Johnson v. Kakvand, No. 97-3893 (7th Cir. Sept. 17, 1999), the Plaintiffs sued Liberty Mortgage Corp. (Liberty) and it's president and sole shareholder, Mike Kakvand, alleging violations of the Fair Housing Act, the Equal Credit Opportunity Act, and the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Practices Act.
U.S. Supreme Court resolves issue in federal removal caseBy Michael Todd ScottCorporate Law Departments, October 1999In Ruhrgas v. Marathon Oil Co., (May 17, 1998), the Supreme Court addressed the issue of whether subject-matter jurisdiction must be decided before personal jurisdiction in removal cases.
In-house counsel whistleblowers may lose Title VII protectionsBy Michael Todd ScottCorporate Law Departments, August 1999In earlier editions of The Corporate Lawyer, we printed the ISBA amicus brief and the supreme court opinion in Jacobson v. Knepper & Moga, P.C.
Letter from the editorBy Michael Todd ScottCorporate Law Departments, August 1999This is the first issue of the 1999-2000 fiscal year. Our goal this year is to once again increase the number of issues of The Corporate Lawyer we bring you.
New Rule 23(f) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure makes class action certifications immediately appealableBy Michael Todd ScottCorporate Law Departments, August 1999In June of 1997, the Standing Committee on Rules of Practice and Procedure approved a recommendation from its Advisory Committee on Civil Rules to amend Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to add section 23(f) which authorized the interlocutory appeal of class action certification rulings.
“Alternate liability,” “enterprise liability” and “market share liability”: A products liability reviewBy Michael Todd ScottCorporate Law Departments, June 1999The purpose of this article is to provide corporate counsel an overview of three theories used to impose liability upon manufacturers of a defective product when the plaintiff cannot prove the exact identity of the manufacturer of the individual product which caused the plaintiff's injury.
Letter from the editorBy Michael Todd ScottCorporate Law Departments, June 1999This is the fifth and final edition of The Corporate Lawyer for the 1998-1999 year. I sincerely hope that our section members found volume 36 to be both interesting and informative and worth the price of membership in the Corporate Law Departments Section.
Letter from the editorBy Michael Todd ScottCorporate Law Departments, April 1999As this forth edition of The Corporate Lawyer for the 1998-99 year goes to press, we are already completing the fifth edition. Thus, I can now state for certain that we will make our goal of providing you with five newsletters this year.
U.S. Supreme Court rules that Daubert factors apply to all experts, not just scientistsBy Michael Todd ScottCorporate Law Departments, April 1999In Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993), the U.S. Supreme Court confirmed the trial judge's role as a "gatekeeper" in regards to the admissibility of expert testimony and held that Rule 702 of the Federal Rules of Evidence governs the admissibility of novel scientific evidence.
Are your documents protected by the work product doctrine?By Michael Todd ScottCorporate Law Departments, February 1999Most large corporations face litigation in many different jurisdictions. As a result, those corporations may have documents which are work product in a case in one jurisdiction which are at issue in another jurisdiction in subsequent litigation
Letter from the editorBy Michael Todd ScottCorporate Law Departments, February 1999This is the third edition of The Corporate Lawyer for the 1998-1999 year and we are still on track to meet our goal of five newsletters this year.
Spot an error in your article? Contact Celeste Niemann at cniemann@isba.org. For information on obtaining a copy of an article, visit the ISBA Newsletters page.