Seventh Circuit Opinion Correctly Decides the Wrong Law?
By Phillip R. Van Ness
Intellectual Property,
June 2022
The K.F.C. v Snap, Inc., No. 21-2247 (7th Cir. March 24, 2022), court made the correct decision, although with puzzling implications. When and how should arbitration contract formation be evaluated?
Google v. Oracle: U.S. Supreme Court Whiffs on a Chance to Declare Code’s Status
By Phillip R. Van Ness
Intellectual Property,
September 2021
In its April 5, 2021 decision in Google LLC v. Oracle America Inc., the Supreme Court overwhelmingly sided with Google in its long-running copyright dispute with Oracle. The decision generally pleased tech companies but upset the movie and recording industries as well as publishers and authors, not to mention the Trump administration, which sided with Oracle in this battle of heavyweights, although Google is obviously the larger of the two combatants. After the extended process inflicted on the litigants, some issues remain unresolved.
A ruse by any other name: Normalizing trademark infringement by domain name sabotage
By Phillip R. Van Ness
Intellectual Property,
September 2017
Increasingly, Internet domain names orchestrate trademark collision and confusion. Law firms O’Keefe Lyons & Hynes LLC v. O’Keefe Law Firm Ltd. Discovered the disharmony. The elaborate dispute resolution process adopted by ICANN might sometimes be a sham, losing trademarks their vitality.
Navigating mechanics liens through hostile “ground lease” territory
By Phillip R. Van Ness
Real Estate Law,
October 2011
Most real estate practitioners are well acquainted with the common “Ground Lease” and the even more common Mechanics’ Lien. But reconciling these stalwart fixtures of real property law can pose practical problems which are magnified in the current real estate market.
Phase I Environmental Site Assessments: The familiar stranger
By Phillip R. Van Ness
Real Estate Law,
February 2009
An attorney charged with guiding his or her Illinois client through a Phase I doesn’t have to understand the science behind it (although that surely won’t hurt). But he or she does have to know whether the Phase I at least prima facie appears to comport with the essential elements of a valid Phase I. At this point, it may be advisable to secure the services of an environmental lawyer, but even a non-technically trained lawyer can put together a checklist that greatly increases the odds that the client will have a Phase I it can rely on.
In this issue
By Phillip R. Van Ness
Environmental and Natural Resources Law,
August 2003
This month's newsletter concentrates on the changes forthcoming from the Illinois Statehouse. There were a lot of them.
In this issue, etc.
By Phillip R. Van Ness
Environmental and Natural Resources Law,
February 2003
This month's newsletter addresses what is probably the most commonly encountered environmental problem in the State of Illinois: leaking underground petroleum storage tanks.
In this issue
By Phillip R. Van Ness
Environmental and Natural Resources Law,
December 2002
This month's newsletter includes a comprehensive introduction to the Illinois Pollution Control Board's new COOL (for Clerk's Office On-Line) system, presented by the Board's Chairman, Claire Manning, and Richard McGill.
“Up the ladder” or “up the creek”? Environmental counsel and the strange new world of Sarbanes-Oxley
By Phillip R. Van Ness
Environmental and Natural Resources Law,
December 2002
In an earlier edition of this newsletter, we advised readers that the environmental practitioner may find himself/herself entangled in the attorney regulatory rules to be promulgated by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) in response to the so-called Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (Public Law No. 107-204) (the Act).
First District panel agrees: sometimes, less (costs) more
By Phillip R. Van Ness
Environmental and Natural Resources Law,
June 2001
A recent opinion of the First District Appellate Court (Second Division) confirms that where contract law and environmental law combine, minimalist environmental remedies purchased at the cost of protracted delay may be disfavored.
Third District panel gets the last word
By Phillip R. Van Ness
Environmental and Natural Resources Law,
June 2001
In an otherwise unremarkable decision, the Third District Appellate Court has held that last-minute public comments by a landfill siting applicant and a biased staff in the employ of the final siting authority do not render the siting proceedings fundamentally unfair.
Footnote: USEPA reluctantly bows to Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals in Harmon “overfiling” case
By Phillip R. Van Ness
Environmental and Natural Resources Law,
January 2001
Readers of this newsletter will recall earlier comments regarding a decision by the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri (Smith, J.) in Harmon Industries, Inc. v. Browner, 19 F.Supp.2d 988 (W.D. Mo. 1998), which, inter alia, held that USEPA could not "overfile" where an authorized state had acted, unless it first took steps to pull that state's authorization.
Harmon strikes sour note with U.S. EPA
By Phillip R. Van Ness
Environmental and Natural Resources Law,
June 1999
A recent decision by the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri (Smith, J.) has raised the ire of U.S. EPA, which has filed an appeal with the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals.
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.
Select a Different Author