Rutter Group

Last updated
Rutter Group
The Rutter Group - Acronym Logo and Full Name Logo.png
Available inEnglish
Owner Thomson Reuters
URL www.ruttergroup.com
CommercialYes
Launched1979

The Rutter Group, founded by William Rutter, [1] with Linda A. Diamond, is a business of Thomson Reuters that publishes materials for lawyers and judges in the United States, with a particular focus on California. The Rutter Group is well known for its Rutter Group Practice Guides, which are written and edited by famous lawyers and judges. [2] Courts have cited these treatises in almost 8,000 legal opinions, and they have been called the 'bible' for litigators. [3] [4] [5] [6] [7]

Contents

Many of the cases that the treatises cite point back directly to the Rutter text as the original source of the legal principle applied. When this occurs, the Rutter treatises include the parenthetical "citing text" when listing the cases. [8]

Because the publications are non-binding, courts may sometimes expressly decline to follow them. [9] However, both California and federal courts have repeatedly identified Rutter treatises as "well-respected" interpretations of the law, [10] which may be cited as "redoubtable" authority. [11] The California Court of Appeal has treated the existence of conflicting Rutter Group authority as strong evidence that a legal question was unsettled and therefore not an appropriate basis for sanctioning an attorney. [12]

The Rutter Group also sponsors panel discussions regarding recent changes in the law, and the judges it hires to participate in these events must disclose the compensation they receive because it could potentially be a conflict of interests. [13]

Rutter treatises

The Rutter Group now publishes more than twenty-five treatises, which are available both in print and through Westlaw. They are considered one of the primary reasons that many attorneys subscribe to Westlaw instead of its competitor, Lexis.[ citation needed ]

The print versions of the Rutter Group treatises were historically distributed as interfiled looseleaf services in ring binders, meaning that only the pages that had changed during a particular year were printed and sent. In 2020, Rutter Group began to send comprehensive updates. Subscribers are now instructed to replace all pages and to keep only the tabbed chapter dividers originally provided with their ring binders.

Subjects include:

Related Research Articles

Vexatious litigation is legal action which is brought solely to harass or subdue an adversary. It may take the form of a primary frivolous lawsuit or may be the repetitive, burdensome, and unwarranted filing of meritless motions in a matter which is otherwise a meritorious cause of action. Filing vexatious litigation is considered an abuse of the judicial process and may result in sanctions against the offender.

Malicious prosecution is a common law intentional tort. Like the tort of abuse of process, its elements include (1) intentionally instituting and pursuing a legal action that is (2) brought without probable cause and (3) dismissed in favor of the victim of the malicious prosecution. In some jurisdictions, the term "malicious prosecution" denotes the wrongful initiation of criminal proceedings, while the term "malicious use of process" denotes the wrongful initiation of civil proceedings.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Case citation</span> System for uniquely identifying individual rulings of a court

Case citation is a system used by legal professionals to identify past court case decisions, either in series of books called reporters or law reports, or in a neutral style that identifies a decision regardless of where it is reported. Case citations are formatted differently in different jurisdictions, but generally contain the same key information.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Westlaw</span> Online legal research service

Westlaw is an online legal research service and proprietary database for lawyers and legal professionals available in over 60 countries. Information resources on Westlaw include more than 40,000 databases of case law, state and federal statutes, administrative codes, newspaper and magazine articles, public records, law journals, law reviews, treatises, legal forms and other information resources.

<i>Apple v. Does</i> California Courts of Appeal case

Apple v. Does was a high-profile legal proceeding in United States of America notable for bringing into question the breadth of the shield law protecting journalists from being forced to reveal their sources, and whether that law applied to online news journalists writing about corporate trade secrets. The case was also notable for the large collection of amici curiae who joined in the matter.

Barrett v. Rosenthal, 40 Cal.4th 33 (2006), was a California Supreme Court case concerning online defamation. The case resolved a defamation claim brought by Stephen Barrett, Terry Polevoy, and attorney Christopher Grell against Ilena Rosenthal and several others. Barrett and others alleged that the defendants had republished libelous information about them on the internet. In a unanimous decision, the court held that Rosenthal was a "user of interactive computer services" and therefore immune from liability under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act.

Tortious interference, also known as intentional interference with contractual relations, in the common law of torts, occurs when one person intentionally damages someone else's contractual or business relationships with a third party, causing economic harm. As an example, someone could use blackmail to induce a contractor into breaking a contract; they could threaten a supplier to prevent them from supplying goods or services to another party; or they could obstruct someone's ability to honor a contract with a client by deliberately refusing to deliver necessary goods.

The multinational technology corporation Apple Inc. has been a participant in various legal proceedings and claims since it began operation and, like its competitors and peers, engages in litigation in its normal course of business for a variety of reasons. In particular, Apple is known for and promotes itself as actively and aggressively enforcing its intellectual property interests. From the 1980s to the present, Apple has been plaintiff or defendant in civil actions in the United States and other countries. Some of these actions have determined significant case law for the information technology industry and many have captured the attention of the public and media. Apple's litigation generally involves intellectual property disputes, but the company has also been a party in lawsuits that include antitrust claims, consumer actions, commercial unfair trade practice suits, defamation claims, and corporate espionage, among other matters.

<i>Armstrong</i> cases Lawsuits to suppress disclosing Hubbard documents

Armstrong I–VIII were a lengthy series of lawsuits and other legal actions, primarily in the California state courts, arising from Gerald Armstrong's departure from the Church of Scientology (COS). The COS argued that Armstrong, a former COS employee, improperly took private papers belonging to the Church, while Armstrong argued that he took the papers to protect himself from improper disciplinary proceedings and that the Church did, in fact, discipline him improperly.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Law of California</span> Overview of the law of the U.S. state of California

The law of California consists of several levels, including constitutional, statutory, and regulatory law, as well as case law. The California Codes form the general statutory law, and most state agency regulations are available in the California Code of Regulations.

Pro se legal representation comes from Latin pro se, meaning "for oneself" or "on behalf of themselves" which, in modern law, means to argue on one's own behalf in a legal proceeding, as a defendant or plaintiff in civil cases, or a defendant in criminal cases, rather than have representation from counsel or an attorney.

The California Art Preservation Act (CAPA) is a 1979 California law that provides legal protection for artists' moral rights by prohibiting the alteration or destruction of their artwork without their consent. The law has since been amended in part. The law is codified at California Civil Code § 987. The California Art Preservation Act was the first major law to specifically address artists' rights in the United States.

<i>People v. Pointer</i>

People v. Pointer, 151 Cal.App.3d 1128, 199 Cal. Rptr. 357 (1984), is a criminal law case from the California Court of Appeal, First District, is significant because the trial judge included in his sentencing a prohibition on the defendant becoming pregnant during her period of probation. The appellate court held that such a prohibition was outside the bounds of a judge's sentencing authority. The case was remanded for resentencing to undo the overly broad prohibition against conception.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">California Public Records Act</span> Freedom-of-information law in California, US

The California Public Records Act was a law passed by the California State Legislature and signed by governor Ronald Reagan in 1968 requiring inspection or disclosure of governmental records to the public upon request, unless exempted by law.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Death on the High Seas Act</span> United States admiralty law enacted by the United States Congress in 1920.

The Death on the High Seas Act (DOHSA) is a United States admiralty law enacted by the United States Congress in 1920. The Act functions as a wrongful death statute, providing a cause of action for surviving family members when an individual dies as a result of a wrongful act or disaster in international waters. These individuals may make a civil claim for damages against the "person or vessel responsible" for the wrongful or negligent act that caused the death. DOHSA also applies to negligent acts causing death that occur after the initial accident, if the decedent was on the high seas at the time the negligence began. Though DOHSA is generally the exclusive remedy available for certain wrongful death claims under maritime law, surviving relatives may make concurrent claims under DOHSA and the Jones Act in some circumstances.

I. Nelson Rose is an internationally known author and public speaker, and is recognized as one of the world's leading experts on gambling and gaming law. He is currently a Professor Emeritus at Whittier College and a Visiting Professor at the University of Macau. Rose is best known for his internationally syndicated column and 1986 book, Gambling and the Law. To further educate and inform on the subject, he also maintains a comprehensive website, "Gambling and the Law," which can be found at www.gamblingandthelaw.com.

Taus v. Loftus, 151 P.3d 1185 was a Supreme Court of California case in which the court held that academic researchers' publication of information relating to a study by another researcher was newsworthy and subject to protection under the state's anti-SLAPP act. The court noted that the defendants had not disclosed the plaintiff's name and that Nicole Taus had disclosed it herself when she filed the case under her own name. The court did find that Taus had alleged a prima facie case that Loftus had misrepresented herself during the investigation and that this one count may proceed to trial.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Jeffrey Ehrlich</span> American lawyer and author

Jeffrey Isaac Ehrlich is an American lawyer and author, known for handling landmark appeals in the United States Supreme Court and the California Supreme Court. He is co-author of the influential Thomson Reuters treatise on insurance litigation, and editor-in-chief of Advocate, the most widely circulated trial-bar magazine in the United States. He and his son, Clinton Ehrlich, are also known for exonerating Sgt. Raymond Lee Jennings, an Iraq War veteran who served 11 years of a life sentence for murdering teenager Michelle O'Keefe.

<i>Czarnik v. Illumina Inc.</i>

Czarnik v. Illumina Inc., 437 F. Supp. 2d 252, was a United States patent law case heard before the United States District Court for the District of Delaware. In its ruling, the district court was the first court to hold that reputational harm could be sufficient to establish standing in an action for correction of named inventor under 35 U.S.C. § 256. That ruling led to a split among district courts that has yet to be definitively resolved.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Tony N. Leung</span>

Tony N. Leung is a United States magistrate judge of the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota. 

References

  1. "Obituary of William A. Rutter".
  2. TRG. "Frequently Asked Questions" . Retrieved 21 February 2013.
  3. California Civil Procedure, 2012, Walter H. Helser, at pp. 7 & 24.
  4. "California Legal Research: Citing the Witkin Treatises," Santa Clara Law, http://lawguides.scu.edu/content.php?pid=95565&sid=714991
  5. See, e.g., Scalf v. D.B. Log Homes, Inc. (2005) 128 Cal.App.4th 1510, 1525; Diepenbrock v. Brown (2012) 208 Cal.App.4th 743, 746-47; J.B. Aguerre, Inc. v. American Guarantee & Liability Ins. Co. (1997) 59 Cal.App.4th 6, 13
  6. As of 9-2-2015 the Rutter Group had been cited in 7,703 opinions from federal and state courts. (WestlawNext, strict:"rutter group," All State & Federal, https://a.next.westlaw.com)
  7. Plaintiff Magazine, Dec 2008, Tami Kamin-Meyer, "Westlaw versus Lexis"
  8. (See e.g., California Practice Guide, Insurance Litigation, Chapter 7B-I § 7:707 & 7:708.5
  9. See, e.g., Forte Capital Partners, LLC v. Harris Cramer, LLP (N.D. Cal., July 21, 2009, C-07-1237 EMC) 2009 WL 2175629 ("As for. . .the Rutter Group treatise, the Court notes that it is only a treatise, and not binding authority")
  10. Aleman v. AirTouch Cellular (2011) 202 Cal.App.4th 117 [134 Cal.Rptr.3d 643, 656-57]; NOS Communications, Inc. v. Sprint Communications Co., L.P. (Cal. Ct. App., Nov. 3, 2003, B165005) 2003 WL 22476236; In re Marriage of Crane (Cal. Ct. App., May 31, 2006, A109921) 2006 WL 1493771; Cisneros v. Vueve (1995) 37 Cal.App.4th 906, 912, fn. 4; VW Credit, Inc. v. Keuylian (Cal. Ct. App., July 26, 2012, G044632) 2012 WL 3039757, fn.6, Bennigson v. Alsdorf (Cal. Ct. App., Apr. 15, 2004, B168200) 2004 WL 803616; Albert v. Satellite Management Co. (Cal. Ct. App., May 16, 2008, E042093) 2008 WL 2070605; Hynix Semiconductor Inc. v. Rambus Inc. (N.D. Cal., Jan. 21, 2008, CV-00-20905 RMW) 2008 WL 190990; Winston v. Taylor (Cal. Ct. App., Sept. 27, 2006, C048373) 2006 WL 2766211; Chen v. Union Bank of California (Cal. Ct. App., Nov. 26, 2002, G030014) 2002 WL 31664335; Diamond v. County of Sacramento (E.D. Cal., Jan. 31, 2006, CIV. 05-1606DFLDAD) 2006 WL 236902)
  11. Allen v. Stoddard (2013) 212 Cal.App.4th 807 [152 Cal.Rptr.3d 71]
  12. Diepenbrock v. Brown (2012) 208 Cal.App.4th 743, 749 [145 Cal.Rptr.3d 659, 663]
  13. California Fair Political Practices Commission - March 13, 1999 Letter to the Honorable Richard M. Sims III "Re: Your Request for Advice," 1992 WL 778701