Related Research Articles
A class action, also known as a class-action lawsuit, class suit, or representative action, is a type of lawsuit where one of the parties is a group of people who are represented collectively by a member or members of that group. The class action originated in the United States and is still predominantly a U.S. phenomenon, but Canada, as well as several European countries with civil law, have made changes in recent years to allow consumer organizations to bring claims on behalf of consumers.
In common law legal systems, laches is a lack of diligence and activity in making a legal claim, or moving forward with legal enforcement of a right, particularly in regard to equity. This means that it is an unreasonable delay that can be viewed as prejudicing the opposing party. When asserted in litigation, it is an equity defense, that is, a defense to a claim for an equitable remedy.
A lawsuit is a proceeding by a party or parties against another in the civil court of law. The archaic term "suit in law" is found in only a small number of laws still in effect today. The term "lawsuit" is used in reference to a civil action brought in a court of law in which a plaintiff, a party who claims to have incurred loss as a result of a defendant's actions, demands a legal or equitable remedy. The defendant is required to respond to the plaintiff's complaint. If the plaintiff is successful, judgment is in the plaintiff's favor, and a variety of court orders may be issued to enforce a right, award damages, or impose a temporary or permanent injunction to prevent an act or compel an act. A declaratory judgment may be issued to prevent future legal disputes.
A strategic lawsuit against public participation (SLAPP) is a lawsuit intended to censor, intimidate, and silence critics by burdening them with the cost of a legal defense until they abandon their criticism or opposition.
In law, a settlement is a resolution between disputing parties about a legal case, reached either before or after court action begins. The term also has other meanings in the context of law. Structured settlements provide for future periodic payments, instead of a one time cash payment.
A declaratory judgment, also called a declaration, is the legal determination of a court that resolves legal uncertainty for the litigants. It is a form of legally binding preventive adjudication by which a party involved in an actual or possible legal matter can ask a court to conclusively rule on and affirm the rights, duties, or obligations of one or more parties in a civil dispute. The declaratory judgment is generally considered a statutory remedy and not an equitable remedy in the United States, and is thus not subject to equitable requirements, though there are analogies that can be found in the remedies granted by courts of equity. A declaratory judgment does not by itself order any action by a party, or imply damages or an injunction, although it may be accompanied by one or more other remedies.
The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure govern civil procedure in United States district courts. The FRCP are promulgated by the United States Supreme Court pursuant to the Rules Enabling Act, and then the United States Congress has seven months to veto the rules promulgated or they become part of the FRCP. The Court's modifications to the rules are usually based upon recommendations from the Judicial Conference of the United States, the federal judiciary's internal policy-making body.
The Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995, Pub.L. 104–67 (text)(pdf), 109 Stat. 737 ("PSLRA") implemented several substantive changes in the United States, affecting certain cases brought under the federal securities laws, including changes related to pleading, discovery, liability, class representation, and awards fees and expenses.
In international law and business, patent trolling or patent hoarding is a categorical or pejorative term applied to a person or company that attempts to enforce patent rights against accused infringers far beyond the patent's actual value or contribution to the prior art, often through hardball legal tactics. Patent trolls often do not manufacture products or supply services based upon the patents in question. However, some entities which do not practice their asserted patent may not be considered "patent trolls" when they license their patented technologies on reasonable terms in advance.
In law, a joinder is the joining of two or more legal issues together. Procedurally, a joinder allows multiple issues to be heard in one hearing or trial and is done when the issues or parties involved overlap sufficiently to make the process more efficient or more fair. It helps courts avoid hearing the same facts multiple times or seeing the same parties return to court separately for each of their legal disputes. The term is also used in the realm of contracts to describe the joining of new parties to an existing agreement.
Foss v Harbottle (1843) 2 Hare 461, 67 ER 189 is a leading English precedent in corporate law. In any action in which a wrong is alleged to have been done to a company, the proper claimant is the company itself. This is known as "the rule in Foss v Harbottle", and the several important exceptions that have been developed are often described as "exceptions to the rule in Foss v Harbottle". Amongst these is the "derivative action", which allows a minority shareholder to bring a claim on behalf of the company. This applies in situations of "wrongdoer control" and is, in reality, the only true exception to the rule. The rule in Foss v Harbottle is best seen as the starting point for minority shareholder remedies.
Milberg LLP is a US plaintiffs' law firm, established in 1965 and based in New York City. It has mounted many class action cases on behalf of investors, and has been recognized as among the leading firms in its field by the National Law Journal, RiskMetrics Group, Securities Class Action Services, and Law360. The firm and some of its partners were charged in 2006 with offering improper inducements to plaintiffs. The case against the firm itself was dismissed in 2008, but that same year four partners pleaded guilty to charges, and many others had already left the firm.
Tort reform refers to proposed changes in the civil justice system that aim to reduce the ability of victims to bring tort litigation or to reduce damages they can receive.
Grant & Eisenhofer P.A. is a national law firm that focuses on securities and complex litigation, corporate governance, shareholder activism, false claims/whistleblower, antitrust, bankruptcy, consumer protection, environmental disaster, public entity, intellectual property, complex pharmaceutical and medical device, birth injury litigation, and civil rights cases. G&E represents public and private institutional investors, whistleblowers, and consumers who seek restitution for damage caused by fraud, greed or mismanagement by corporations and major accounting firms.
Arthur Alan Wolk is an American attorney and author. He is the founding partner of The Wolk Law Firm in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, which specializes in aviation law and air crash litigation for plaintiffs.
American Electric Power Company v. Connecticut, 564 U.S. 410 (2011), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court, in an 8–0 decision, held that corporations cannot be sued for greenhouse gas emissions (GHGs) under federal common law, primarily because the Clean Air Act (CAA) delegates the management of carbon dioxide and other GHG emissions to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Brought to court in July 2004 in the Southern District of New York, this was the first global warming case based on a public nuisance claim.
Phillips Petroleum Co. v. Shutts, 472 U.S. 797 (1985), was a conflict of laws case decided by the United States Supreme Court.
Asbestos bankruptcy trusts are trusts established by firms that have filed for reorganization under Chapter 11 of the United States Bankruptcy Code to pay personal injury claims caused by exposure to asbestos. At least 56 such trusts were established from the mid-1970s to 2011.
Doe et al. v. Trump Corporation et al. is an ongoing case filed in the U.S. District Court for Southern District of New York in October 2018, in which four anonymous plaintiffs filed a lawsuit against the Trump Corporation, Donald Trump and three of his adult children — Donald Jr., Eric and Ivanka — alleging racketeering and of fraudulently encouraging unsophisticated investors to give large amounts of money to organizations connected to the Trumps. It is alleged that the defendants promoted ACN in exchange for millions of dollars in secret payments from 2005 to 2015. The lawsuit says that Trump "told investors that he had 'experienced the opportunity' and 'done a lot of research,' and that his endorsement was 'not for any money.'" However, it subsequently emerged that Trump was a paid spokesman for at least one of the companies whose products and services he was promoting to investors.
Home Depot U. S. A., Inc. v. Jackson, 587 U.S. ___ (2019), was a United States Supreme Court case which determined that a third-party defendant to a counterclaim submitted in a state-court civil action cannot remove their case to federal court. The Court explained, in a 5–4 decision, that although a third-party counterclaim defendant is a "defendant to a claim," removal can only be performed by the defendant to a "civil action." And this holds true even when the counterclaim is in the form of a class action. The Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 permits removal by "any defendant to a class action" but this does not extend removal rights to a third-party counterclaim defendant because they are not a defendant to the original case.
References
- ↑ Badawi, Adam B.; Webber, David H. (2015). "Does the Quality of the Plaintiffs' Law Firm Matter in Deal Litigation?". The Journal of Corporation Law. 41 (2): 104. Retrieved 19 November 2019.
- ↑ Fox, Merritt B. "Required Disclosure And Corporate Governance". Law And Contemporary Problems. Retrieved 2008-10-15.