Podcasts about judicata

Summary of Chapter 10: Res Judicata and Collateral Estoppel. Res Judicata (Claim Preclusion): Res judicata, also known as claim preclusion, prevents parties from re-litigating claims that have already been resolved in a previous lawsuit. This doctrine applies when the following elements are met: Identity of Parties: The parties in both the original and subsequent lawsuits must be the same or in privity with each other. Identity of Claims: The claims in both cases must arise from the same transaction or occurrence. Final Judgment on the Merits: The prior case must have been resolved with a final judgment that addressed the substance of the claims. Res judicata ensures the finality of judgments, promotes judicial efficiency, and protects parties from the burden of repetitive litigation. Exceptions to Res Judicata: Despite its broad application, there are exceptions to res judicata to prevent injustice, including: Lack of Jurisdiction: If the court lacked jurisdiction in the original case, res judicata does not apply. Fraud or Misrepresentation: Judgments obtained through fraudulent means can be challenged. New Evidence: If new, critical evidence is discovered that could not have been found during the original trial, the case may be re-litigated. These exceptions ensure that the doctrine is applied fairly and does not perpetuate an unjust result. Collateral Estoppel (Issue Preclusion): Collateral estoppel, or issue preclusion, prevents the re-litigation of specific issues that were already decided in a previous case, even if the current case involves a different claim. The key elements are: Identical Issue: The issue in the current litigation must be the same as the one decided in the prior case. Actually Litigated: The issue must have been fully litigated and decided in the previous case. Essential to Judgment: The issue must have been essential to the final judgment in the previous case. Collateral estoppel promotes judicial efficiency and consistency by preventing the same issues from being litigated multiple times. Mutuality and Non-Mutual Issue Preclusion: Traditionally, collateral estoppel required mutuality, meaning that only the parties involved in the original case could benefit from or be burdened by the issue preclusion. However, modern courts have recognized non-mutual issue preclusion, which allows parties who were not involved in the original case to benefit from or be bound by the issue preclusion. There are two types: Defensive Non-Mutual Issue Preclusion: A defendant uses the prior loss of a plaintiff against another defendant to prevent re-litigation. Offensive Non-Mutual Issue Preclusion: A plaintiff uses a prior judgment against the defendant to prevent re-litigation. Courts exercise discretion in applying non-mutual issue preclusion, balancing fairness and judicial efficiency. Conclusion: Chapter 10 examines the doctrines of res judicata and collateral estoppel, which are critical in maintaining the finality of judgments and preventing the re-litigation of claims and issues that have been previously resolved. By understanding the elements, exceptions, and applications of these doctrines, legal practitioners can better navigate the complexities of civil litigation and ensure that justice is served efficiently and fairly. --- Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/law-school/support

Summary of Chapter 10: Res Judicata and Collateral Estoppel. Res Judicata (Claim Preclusion): Res judicata, also known as claim preclusion, prevents parties from re-litigating claims that have already been resolved in a previous lawsuit. This doctrine applies when the following elements are met: Identity of Parties: The parties in both the original and subsequent lawsuits must be the same or in privity with each other. Identity of Claims: The claims in both cases must arise from the same transaction or occurrence. Final Judgment on the Merits: The prior case must have been resolved with a final judgment that addressed the substance of the claims. Res judicata ensures the finality of judgments, promotes judicial efficiency, and protects parties from the burden of repetitive litigation. Exceptions to Res Judicata: Despite its broad application, there are exceptions to res judicata to prevent injustice, including: Lack of Jurisdiction: If the court lacked jurisdiction in the original case, res judicata does not apply. Fraud or Misrepresentation: Judgments obtained through fraudulent means can be challenged. New Evidence: If new, critical evidence is discovered that could not have been found during the original trial, the case may be re-litigated. These exceptions ensure that the doctrine is applied fairly and does not perpetuate an unjust result. Collateral Estoppel (Issue Preclusion): Collateral estoppel, or issue preclusion, prevents the re-litigation of specific issues that were already decided in a previous case, even if the current case involves a different claim. The key elements are: Identical Issue: The issue in the current litigation must be the same as the one decided in the prior case. Actually Litigated: The issue must have been fully litigated and decided in the previous case. Essential to Judgment: The issue must have been essential to the final judgment in the previous case. Collateral estoppel promotes judicial efficiency and consistency by preventing the same issues from being litigated multiple times. Mutuality and Non-Mutual Issue Preclusion: Traditionally, collateral estoppel required mutuality, meaning that only the parties involved in the original case could benefit from or be burdened by the issue preclusion. However, modern courts have recognized non-mutual issue preclusion, which allows parties who were not involved in the original case to benefit from or be bound by the issue preclusion. There are two types: Defensive Non-Mutual Issue Preclusion: A defendant uses the prior loss of a plaintiff against another defendant to prevent re-litigation. Offensive Non-Mutual Issue Preclusion: A plaintiff uses a prior judgment against the defendant to prevent re-litigation. Courts exercise discretion in applying non-mutual issue preclusion, balancing fairness and judicial efficiency. Conclusion: Chapter 10 examines the doctrines of res judicata and collateral estoppel, which are critical in maintaining the finality of judgments and preventing the re-litigation of claims and issues that have been previously resolved. By understanding the elements, exceptions, and applications of these doctrines, legal practitioners can better navigate the complexities of civil litigation and ensure that justice is served efficiently and fairly. --- Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/law-school/support

Summary of Chapter 10: Res Judicata and Collateral Estoppel. Res Judicata (Claim Preclusion): Res judicata, also known as claim preclusion, prevents parties from re-litigating claims that have already been resolved in a previous lawsuit. This doctrine applies when the following elements are met: Identity of Parties: The parties in both the original and subsequent lawsuits must be the same or in privity with each other. Identity of Claims: The claims in both cases must arise from the same transaction or occurrence. Final Judgment on the Merits: The prior case must have been resolved with a final judgment that addressed the substance of the claims. Res judicata ensures the finality of judgments, promotes judicial efficiency, and protects parties from the burden of repetitive litigation. Exceptions to Res Judicata: Despite its broad application, there are exceptions to res judicata to prevent injustice, including: Lack of Jurisdiction: If the court lacked jurisdiction in the original case, res judicata does not apply. Fraud or Misrepresentation: Judgments obtained through fraudulent means can be challenged. New Evidence: If new, critical evidence is discovered that could not have been found during the original trial, the case may be re-litigated. These exceptions ensure that the doctrine is applied fairly and does not perpetuate an unjust result. Collateral Estoppel (Issue Preclusion): Collateral estoppel, or issue preclusion, prevents the re-litigation of specific issues that were already decided in a previous case, even if the current case involves a different claim. The key elements are: Identical Issue: The issue in the current litigation must be the same as the one decided in the prior case. Actually Litigated: The issue must have been fully litigated and decided in the previous case. Essential to Judgment: The issue must have been essential to the final judgment in the previous case. Collateral estoppel promotes judicial efficiency and consistency by preventing the same issues from being litigated multiple times. Mutuality and Non-Mutual Issue Preclusion: Traditionally, collateral estoppel required mutuality, meaning that only the parties involved in the original case could benefit from or be burdened by the issue preclusion. However, modern courts have recognized non-mutual issue preclusion, which allows parties who were not involved in the original case to benefit from or be bound by the issue preclusion. There are two types: Defensive Non-Mutual Issue Preclusion: A defendant uses the prior loss of a plaintiff against another defendant to prevent re-litigation. Offensive Non-Mutual Issue Preclusion: A plaintiff uses a prior judgment against the defendant to prevent re-litigation. Courts exercise discretion in applying non-mutual issue preclusion, balancing fairness and judicial efficiency. Conclusion: Chapter 10 examines the doctrines of res judicata and collateral estoppel, which are critical in maintaining the finality of judgments and preventing the re-litigation of claims and issues that have been previously resolved. By understanding the elements, exceptions, and applications of these doctrines, legal practitioners can better navigate the complexities of civil litigation and ensure that justice is served efficiently and fairly. --- Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/law-school/support

oin legal expert Tate Prows as he demystifies the doctrine of res judicata. Explore its origins, practical applications, and how it impacts legal proceedings. Whether you're a law student, attorney, or simply curious, this engaging discussion will shed light on the power of finality in legal disputes. Tune in for valuable insights and practical takeaways! Rumble: https://rumble.com/c/c-5882193 YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCqs_hlmHECejgCAvQCa-r5Q X: https://twitter.com/zeus02377 Telegram: The BigSib Chat

If there's now no condemnation for those in Christ Jesus, how can we enjoy that truth when we often feel condemned? Pete Greasley shows us how God's judgment of His Son is the final word for us: 'All Charges Dropped'!

The doctrines of Res Judicata and Collateral Estoppel play pivotal roles in the judiciary system, ensuring the finality of judgments and preventing the re-litigation of cases and issues that have already been decided. These principles are not only foundational for the efficient operation of courts but also protect against the injustice of subjecting parties to multiple lawsuits for the same cause. Res Judicata (Claim Preclusion). Res Judicata, also known as claim preclusion, refers to the legal doctrine which bars parties from re-litigating a case that has already been judged on its merits by a competent court. Its application is fundamental to the concept of judicial finality and serves to conserve judicial resources, respect court judgments, and protect litigants from the burden of multiple lawsuits. Core Elements of Res Judicata. Final Judgment on the Merits: For Res Judicata to apply, there must first be a final judgment on the merits of the case. Preliminary rulings or decisions that do not address the substantive issues of the case do not trigger Res Judicata. Same Parties or Their Privies: The doctrine applies to the parties involved in the original lawsuit or their legal successors. This element ensures that only those who were part of the initial judgment are bound by its results. Same Claim or Cause of Action: Res Judicata prevents the litigation of all claims that were brought or could have been brought in the initial lawsuit. This encompasses all rights to relief arising from the same transaction or occurrence, regardless of whether they were presented in the first case. The Effect of Claim Preclusion. When applied, Res Judicata renders a previous judgment absolute and conclusive on the parties involved, barring any future lawsuit on the same claim. This principle not only applies to the substantive issues that were actually decided but also to every other matter that the parties might have raised in the first action. Collateral Estoppel (Issue Preclusion). Collateral Estoppel, known as issue preclusion, prevents the re-litigation of factual or legal issues that were already decided in a previous lawsuit between the same parties. Unlike Res Judicata, which is concerned with claims, Collateral Estoppel focuses on issues. Key Requirements for Collateral Estoppel. Identical Issue: The issue sought to be precluded must be the same as the one involved in the prior action. This means the specific question or element must have been litigated and decided previously. Previously Adjudicated: The issue must have been actually litigated and determined in a prior lawsuit. This requires that the parties had a full and fair opportunity to argue the issue. Necessary to the Judgment: The determination of the issue must have been essential to the final judgment in the first action. If the issue was incidental or not determinative, Collateral Estoppel does not apply. Mutuality: Traditionally, issue preclusion required mutuality, meaning only parties to the previous lawsuit could use or be bound by the determination. However, many jurisdictions have moved towards a more flexible approach, allowing non-parties to benefit from issue preclusion under certain circumstances, such as in cases of non-mutual defensive Collateral Estoppel. Impact and Application. Collateral Estoppel serves to streamline litigation by eliminating the need to reprove facts or legal issues that have already been resolved. It enhances judicial efficiency and consistency by acknowledging the binding nature of prior adjudications on specific matters. Differences Between Res Judicata and Collateral Estoppel. While both doctrines aim to prevent redundant litigation, they operate on different levels. Res Judicata applies broadly to claims and causes of action, meaning it can preclude all claims arising from a particular transaction that were or could have been raised in the initial litigation. --- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/law-school/message Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/law-school/support

Condo Association are Birthplaces of Litigation Plaintiff, Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company (Nationwide), brought a declaratory judgment action against insureds, Beverly Glen Homeowners' Association (Association) and members of the board of directors asking the court to declare that Nationwide had no duty to defend or indemnify defendants against claims made by the Association residents in a derivative suit. The trial court granted Nationwide's motion for judgment on the pleadings, finding that res judicata and collateral estoppel barred defendants from seeking a defense in the derivative suit where judgment rendered in a prior case determined that Nationwide had no duty to defend. In Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company v. Beverly Glen Homeowners' Association, et al, No. 3-22-0089, 2023 IL App (3d) 220089-U, Court of Appeals of Illinois, Third District (July 7, 2023) BACKGROUND This lawsuit arises out of an ongoing dispute between defendants and Teresa and Katarzyna Jagiello, two Association residents. On April 14, 2020, the trial court granted Nationwide's motion. It held that "There are no material issues of fact in dispute and it is clear, as a matter of law, that the lack of cooperation on the part of the insured and its counsel has relieved Nationwide of its duties under its policy .... Nationwide's insured failed to cooperate with Nationwide, relieving Nationwide of its duties under the policy, and Nationwide owes nothing to its insured...  for any legal services. As such, Nationwide owes neither a duty to defend nor indemnify its insured in this matter." ANALYSIS Res Judicata and Collateral Estoppel The doctrine of res judicata serves to bar actions in which: (1) there was a final judgment on the merits rendered by a court of competent jurisdiction; (2) there is an identity of cause of action; and (3) there is an identity of parties or their privies in both actions. Res judicata prevents the relitigation of issues that could have been decided in the first action along with those issues that were actually decided. The directors of a Condo Association act as the arms of the Association and for all intents and purposes are one and the same. In other words, there exists a legal relationship in which the directors, acting within their corporate authority, bind the Association. --- Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/barry-zalma/support

This week we have Damien Riehl, VP, Litigation Workflow and Analytics Content at Fastcase, and one of the drivers behind SALI (Standards Advancement for for the Legal Industry.) Damien is definitely a "big thinker" when it comes to the benefits of creating and using standards for the legal industry. SALI is a system of tagging legal information to allow for better filtering and analysis. It works like Amazon's product tags, where a user can search for a specific area of law, such as patent law, and then choose between various services such as advice, registration, transactional, dispute, or bankruptcy services. The tags cover everything from the substance of law to the business of law, with over 13,000 tags in the latest version. SALI is being adopted by major legal information providers such as Thomson Reuters, Lexis, Bloomberg, NetDocuments, and iManage, with each provider using the same standardized identifiers for legal work. With this standardization, it will be possible to perform the same API query across different providers and receive consistent results. Imagine the potential of being able to ask one question that is understood by all your database and external systems? In that same vein, we expand our discussion to include how Artificial Intelligence tools like Large Language Models (i.e., ChatGPT, Google BARD, Meta's LLM) could assist legal professionals in their quest to find information, create documents, and help outline legal processes and practices. He proposed three ways of thinking about the work being done by these models, which are largely analogous to traditional methods. The first way is what Riehl refers to as a "bullshitter," where a model generates information without providing citations for the information. The second way is called a "searcher," where a model generates a legal brief, but does not provide citations, forcing the user to search for support. The third way is called a "researcher," where the model finds relevant cases and statutes, extracts relevant propositions, and crafts a brief based on them. Riehl believes that option three, being a researcher, is the most likely to win in the future, as it provides "ground truth" from the start. He cites Fastcase's acquisition of Judicata as an example of how AI can be used to help with research by providing unique identifiers for every proposition and citation, enabling users to evaluate the credibility of the information. In conclusion, Riehl sees a future where AI is used to help researchers by providing a pick list of the most common propositions and citations, which can then be further evaluated by the researcher. One thing is very clear, we are just at the beginning of a shift in how the legal industry processes information. Riehl's one-two combination of SALI Standards combined with additional AI and human capabilities will create a divide amongst the bullshitters, the searchers, and the researchers. Contact Us: Twitter: @gebauerm, or @glambert Voicemail: 713-487-7821 Email: geekinreviewpodcast@gmail.com Music: Jerry David DeCicca Transcript available on 3 Geeks

This week on Breaking Battlegrounds, Chuck and Sam are joined first by Republican candidate for United States Senate in Arizona, Blake Masters. Later in the program, Congressman Drew Ferguson of Georgia calls into the show. Finally, we are joined in studio by Timothy Sandefur of the Goldwater Institute. -Blake grew up in Tucson, Arizona. In 2012, he married his high school sweetheart, Catherine. Happily married for 10 years now, Blake and Catherine are raising and homeschooling their three beautiful boys, Miles, Graham, and Rex.After graduating from Stanford and Stanford Law School, Blake co-founded a successful software startup called Judicata. In 2014, he co-authored the #1 New York Times bestseller Zero to One. Having sold more than 4 million copies, it's the world's most popular book on startups and venture capital.In 2015 Blake became President of the Thiel Foundation, a nonprofit that promotes science and innovation. The Foundation's Thiel Fellowship Program has paid 225 young people to drop out of college so that they can create new companies. Businesses started by Thiel Fellows are together now worth more than $45 billion! From 2018 to 2022, Blake was Chief Operating Officer at Thiel Capital, an investment firm that specializes in the technology sector, where he helped grow assets under management by billions of dollars.Blake also joined President Trump's transition team in 2016. Blake saw firsthand how deep The Swamp really is and how establishment forces immediately tried to undermine President Trump's MAGA agenda. Now Blake is putting his successful business career on hold to represent Arizona in the U.S. Senate because the same old establishment politicians and the same old establishment candidates have failed us. He brings a wealth of experience to the table on how to defeat not just the progressive Democrats, but also the weak and compromised RINO Republicans.America is in decline and the world is a dangerous place. Blake uniquely understands the modern threats that we face.At home, we see an unholy alliance between Big Government, Big Tech and Big Business, who collude to wreak havoc on our economy, destroy our border, impose their radically liberal ideology on our culture, and censor any dissent. Blake uniquely gets how this regime, working hand in hand with the Democrats, is weaponizing technology to destroy America as we know it.Abroad, we see the menace of authoritarian countries like China. Blake has an unrivaled understanding of how China uses technology to not only control and terrorize its own citizens, but also to steal our intellectual property and wage digital warfare against America.As a father, Blake's #1 priority is to ensure America (and Arizona!) remains the best place in the world to raise a family. To do that, we need to make sure America is still recognizable by the time our children are grown. Blake will lead as we fight for our culture.The failures of current leaders like Joe Biden and Mark Kelly have made our situation dire. But Blake rejects the feelings of hopelessness that they are pushing on us. Blake knows that we can win, and we must win. But winning requires electing innovative leaders who truly understand what is happening in this country, and how to restore American freedom and greatness. As a lifelong Arizonan and someone with deep experience in business and the technology industry, Blake is the only one in this race with the necessary skills and background to win the fight in Washington.-Congressman Ferguson represents Georgia's 3rd Congressional District and is the Chief Deputy Whip for House Republicans. He also serves on the Committee on Ways and Means.Congressman Drew Ferguson is a proud native of West Point whose family roots in the West Georgia area are several generations deep. He attended the University of Georgia and gained early acceptance to the Medical College of Georgia. After graduating with a degree in dental medicine, he moved back to his hometown and established a successful family dental practice.In 2008, Congressman Ferguson was elected mayor of West Point and was at the forefront of attracting and keeping jobs in his community. By lowering taxes, eliminating government barriers and reforming education, he led a community in economic ruin back to life. Today, a wide range of new businesses and industries call West Point and the surrounding area home. Led by KIA Motors, automotive suppliers and related businesses, 16,000 new jobs have been created so far. Congressman Ferguson came to Washington to apply the lessons he learned revitalizing West Point to creating policies that once again make America the most competitive place to do business.Just as important as the creation of jobs, Congressman Ferguson wants to remove barriers that prevent those in poverty from moving into the middle class. Smart and effective welfare entitlement reform that actually helps people move ahead rather than trapping them in a cycle of poverty is the first step. Congressman Ferguson believes these problems cannot simply be regulated away, but should look for solutions that get government out of the way of American innovation growth. This is as much a moral issue as it is a practical matter.Drew and his wife, Julie, reside in The Rock, Georgia, and together they have six children: Anderson Drew Ferguson V, Lucy, Mary Parks, Thad, Elizabeth, and Olivia.-Timothy Sandefur is the Vice President for Legal Affairs at the Goldwater Institute's Scharf-Norton Center for Constitutional Litigation and holds the Duncan Chair in Constitutional Government. He litigates important cases for economic liberty, private property rights, free speech, and other matters in states across the country.Timothy is the author of several books, including Frederick Douglass: Self-Made Man (2018), Cornerstone of Liberty: Property Rights in 21st Century America (coauthored with Christina Sandefur, 2016), The Permission Society (2016), The Conscience of The Constitution (2014), and The Right to Earn A Living (2010), as well as more than 50 scholarly articles on subjects ranging from Indian law and antitrust to copyright law, the constitutional issues involved in the Civil War, and the political philosophy of Shakespeare, ancient Greek drama, and Star Trek.  A frequent guest on radio and television, he is well known to radio audiences as “Tim the Lawyer” on the Armstrong and Getty Program, and his writings have appeared in Reason, National Review, the Claremont Review of Books, The Weekly Standard, The Wall Street Journal, The San Francisco Chronicle, and The Objective Standard, where he is a contributing editor.  He teaches public interest litigation at George Mason University's Antonin Scalia Law School.He is an Adjunct Scholar with the Cato Institute and is a graduate of Hillsdale College and Chapman University School of Law.-Connect with us:www.breakingbattlegrounds.voteTwitter: www.twitter.com/Breaking_BattleFacebook: www.facebook.com/breakingbattlegroundsInstagram: www.instagram.com/breakingbattlegroundsLinkedIn: www.linkedin.com/company/breakingbattlegrounds This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit breakingbattlegrounds.substack.com

Subscribe to my youtube channel: lawrequisites ph for more

[1:48, 32:54] Ode to the Loaf[2:08] Da Graca v. Garland, No. 20-1607 (1st Cir. Jan. 18, 2022)Rhode Island Gen. L. § 31-9-1; INA § 101(a)(43)(G); aggravated felony theft offense; joyriding; realistic probability test; state statutory framework as a whole [9:27] Matter of Laguerre, 28 I&N Dec. 437 (BIA 2022)law relating to a controlled substance; INA § 237(a)(2)(B)(i); divisibility; N.J. Stat. § 2C:35-10(a)(1); elements vs. means; double jeopardy; Mathis peak  [17:19] Matter of Laparra, 28 I&N Dec. 425 (BIA 2022)deficient NTA; in absentia motions to reopen; statutory interpretation; use of the word “the”; Niz-Chavez [21:26] USA v. Gomez Gomez, No. 17-20526 (5th Cir. Jan. 18, 2022)aggravated assault in violation of Tex. Pen. Code § 22.01(a)(1); Borden; aggravated felony crime of violence; 18 U.S.C. § 16(a); recklessness [23:01] Diaz Esparza v. Garland, No. 19-60699 (5th Cir. Jan. 17, 2022)CIMT; res judicata; recklessness; deadly conduct in violation of Tex. Pen. Code § 22.05(a); evading arrest with a motor vehicle in violation of Tex. Pen. Code § 38.04; admission and adjustment of status*Sponsors and friends of the podcast!Kurzban Kurzban Tetzeli and Pratt P.A.www.kktplaw.com/Immigration, serious injury, and business lawyers serving clients in Florida, California, and all over the world for over 40 years.Docketwisewww.docketwise.com/immigration-review"Modern immigration software & case management"*Want to become a patron of Immigration Review? Check out our Patreon page at https://www.patreon.com/immigrationreviewCONTACT INFORMATIONEmail: kgregg@kktplaw.comFacebook: "Immigration Review Podcast" or @immigrationreviewInstagram: @immigrationreviewTwitter: @immreview*About your host: https://www.kktplaw.com/attorney/gregg-kevin-a/*More episodes at: https://www.kktplaw.com/immigration-review-podcast/*Featured in the top 15 of Immigration Podcast in the U.S.! https://blog.feedspot.com/immigration_podcasts/DISCLAIMER: Immigration Review® is a podcast made available for educational purposes only. It does not provide specific legal advice. Rather, the Immigration Review® podcast offers general information and insights regarding recent immigration cases from publicly available sources. By accessing and listening to the podcast, you understand that there is no attorney-client relationship between you and the podcast host. The Immigration Review® podcast should not be used as a substitute for competent legal advice from a licensed professional attorney in your state. MUSIC CREDITS: "Loopster," "Bass Vibes," "Chill Wave," and "Funk Game Loop" Kevin MacLeod (incompetech.com) Licensed under Creative Commons: By Attribution 4.0 License http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.Support the show (https://www.patreon.com/immigrationreview)

[2:44] Cabrera v. Garland, No. 20-1943 (4th Cir. Jan. 6, 2022)continuance; U-visa; good cause standard; reputable presumption where collateral relief is prima facie approvable  [9:58] Herrera-Martinez v. Garland, No. 20-1423 (4th Cir. Jan. 5, 2022)particular social group; prosecution witness; particularity; limiting language; fear of drug traffickers; credibility; Honduras [16:32] Aviles-Tavera v. Garland, No. 20-60587 (5th Cir. Jan. 4, 2022)particularly serious crime; Texas Assault - Family Violence; res judicata; issue preclusion; change in law; USA v. Fuentes-Rodriguez; crime of violence under § 16(a); motion to reopen [24:02] Mutua v. U.S. Att'y Gen., No. 20-13129 (11th Cir. Jan. 5, 2022)adjustment of status; discretion; standard of review; arrest but no conviction; administrative notice  *Sponsors and friends of the podcast!Kurzban Kurzban Tetzeli and Pratt P.A.www.kktplaw.com/Immigration, serious injury, and business lawyers serving clients in Florida, California, and all over the world for over 40 years.Docketwisewww.docketwise.com/immigration-review"Modern immigration software & case management"*Want to become a patron of Immigration Review? Check out our Patreon page at https://www.patreon.com/immigrationreview*CONTACT INFORMATIONEmail: kgregg@kktplaw.comFacebook: "Immigration Review Podcast" or @immigrationreviewInstagram: @immigrationreviewTwitter: @immreview*About your host: https://www.kktplaw.com/attorney/gregg-kevin-a/*More episodes at: https://www.kktplaw.com/immigration-review-podcast/*Featured in the top 15 of Immigration Podcast in the U.S.! https://blog.feedspot.com/immigration_podcasts/DISCLAIMER: Immigration Review® is a podcast made available for educational purposes only. It does not provide specific legal advice. Rather, the Immigration Review® podcast offers general information and insights regarding recent immigration cases from publicly available sources. By accessing and listening to the podcast, you understand that there is no attorney-client relationship between you and the podcast host. The Immigration Review® podcast should not be used as a substitute for competent legal advice from a licensed professional attorney in your state. MUSIC CREDITS: "Loopster," "Bass Vibes," "Chill Wave," and "Funk Game Loop" Kevin MacLeod (incompetech.com) Licensed under Creative Commons: By Attribution 4.0 License http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.Support the show (https://www.patreon.com/immigrationreview)

According to an article written by our guest, "Some of the most exciting, vexing, and terrifying issues at the intersection of AI and law involve robojudges. Can we build a robojudiciary that replaces human judiciaries? Should we? Doing so would massively disrupt how our legal systems operate. It also might transform democratic self-government." I have to ask: Would any of that be so bad? It's not like humans are doing such a bang-up job. The risk, of course, is what if we get it all wrong?  The good news for all of us, not the least of which are the robe and wig industries,  is that we still have time. Artificial intelligence is advancing rapidly, but it's still not able to think like a learned jurist. We can say it will have flaws, but so do our human deciders. So it will be a tradeoff, right? What are the risks? What are the upsides? Will robojudges be able to absorb infinitely more information quickly? Will they hand down decisions free from the influence of bias? Wouldn't it be great to eliminate conflicts of interest?  Joining me to discuss this not-so-out-there concept is Joshua P. Davis, a nationally recognized expert on legal ethics, class actions, and artificial intelligence in the law. He is Research Professor of Law at the University of California Hastings College of Law, and Shareholder and Manager of Berger & Montague, P.C.'s new San Francisco Bay Area Office. For more than 20 years Josh was a tenured Professor of Law at the University of San Francisco Law School, where he also served as the Director of the Center for Law and Ethics. Josh is authoring two books, one titled Unnatural Law, dealing with AI and the law, and a second on the important issue of class action ethics. Finally, remind me never to assume anything when I ask Josh a question. I said something like, "Surely we're not talking about sci-fi robots here," to which he basically said, "Not so fast." This happened more than once. When will I learn?  This podcast is the audio companion to the Journal on Emerging Issues in Litigation, a collaborative project between HB Litigation Conferences and the Fastcase legal research family, which includes Full Court Press, Law Street Media, Docket Alarm and, most recently, Judicata. If you have comments or wish to participate in one our projects, or want to tell me how insightful and forward-thinking Josh is, please drop me a note at Editor@LitigationConferences.com.Tom HagyHost of the Emerging Litigation Podcast

There are now billions and billions of interconnected devices in the world with more coming online every day. Smart cars. Smart cities. Smart agriculture and so much more. Even our pets are connected. And you have to look no further than the Colonial Pipeline ransomware attack to see the real-world consequences of what criminals can pull off by connecting with things large and small. Worried about your privacy? Well. There is plenty to worry about. Fortunately we also have a lot of people fighting back on the technical, security, law enforcement, and legal fronts. Joining me to discuss this emerging area of law is Kathryn M. Rattigan, a member of the Business Litigation Group, the Data Privacy + Cybersecurity Team, and the Drone Compliance Team in the Rhode Island office of Robinson Cole.  Kathryn provides clients guidance regarding privacy and data protection in connection with mobile devices, data storage technologies, mobile apps, and location-based services. She  assists with the development of website and mobile app privacy policies and  terms and conditions. Kathryn is a frequent contributor to the excellent Robinson Cole Data Privacy + Cybersecurity Insider blog.  She holds a J.D. from the Roger Williams University School of Law and a B.A. (magna cum laude) from Stonehill College.This podcast is the audio companion to the Journal on Emerging Issues in Litigation, a collaborative project between HB Litigation Conferences and the Fastcase legal research family, which includes Full Court Press, Law Street Media, Docket Alarm and, most recently, Judicata. If you have comments or wish to participate in one our projects, or want to tell me how insightful and informative Kathryn is, please drop me a note at Editor@LitigationConferences.com. Finally, yes, "skeevy" is a word. And the law is not settled as to whether Shiloh has privacy rights.  Tom HagyHost of the Emerging Litigation Podcast

Today, I will talk about the case of National Confederation of Officers Association of Central Public Sector Enterprises and Others v. Union of India and Others, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 1086, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court discussed the applicability of the Principle of Res Judicata to Public Interest Litigations (PILs) in India. To know more about it, please visit https://www.desikanoon.co.in/2021/11/res-judicata-in-pils-public-interest.htmlTelegram: https://t.me/Legal_Talks_by_DesiKanoonYouTube Channel: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCMmVCFV7-Kfo_6S42kPhz2wApple Podcasts: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/legal-talks-by-desikanoon/id1510617120Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/3KdnziPc4I73VfEcFJa59X?si=vYgrOEraQD-NjcoXA2a7Lg&dl_branch=1&nd=1Google Podcasts: https://podcasts.google.com/feed/aHR0cHM6Ly9mZWVkcy5zaW1wbGVjYXN0LmNvbS84ZTZTcGREcw?sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiuz4ifzpLxAhVklGMGHb4HAdwQ9sEGegQIARADAmazon Music: https://music.amazon.com/podcasts/4b89fb71-1836-414e-86f6-1116324dd7bc/Legal-Talks-by-Desikanoon Please subscribe and follow us on YouTube, Instagram, iTunes, Twitter, LinkedIn, Discord, Telegram and Facebook. Credits: Music by Wataboi from Pixabay Thank you for listening!

“Facing the prospect of major financial fallout from an attack, C-suites around the world have turned to cyber insurance. Insurers are issuing more policies, and the amounts of protection available are increasing. In 2020, according to data proprietary to the team I lead, the global insurance community saw the first cyber insurance program to exceed $1 billion — and the second. However, the momentum that has propelled the sector this far may be running out. The cyber insurance sector may still be in its infancy, but there are signs that it's hit a (hopefully temporary) plateau.”That is a quote from a Jan. 11, 2021, article in the Harvard Business Review titled "Cybersecurity Insurance Has a Big Problem." The author of the piece is my guest on our latest episode. He is Tom Johansmeyer, ARM, is head of PCS, a Verisk business. PCS investigates and provides, independent loss estimates on catastrophes and large individual losses to the benefit of the global risk and capital supply chain. Tom has focused on the broad and rapid expansion of PCS, leading the team into Japan, New Zealand, and other APAC regions in 2019 – as well as Mexico. Tom is the architect of the PCS entry into global specialty lines, most recently adding large risk loss reporting to the group's portfolio. Previously, Tom held insurance industry roles at Guy Carpenter (where he launched the first corporate blog in the reinsurance sector) and Deloitte. Personally, I like his LinkedIn description: "Aspiring cyclist and distance swimmer, former soldier. Leading the global charge at PCS. Haven't driven anything with a motor since 2007." Excellent. This podcast is the audio companion to the Journal on Emerging Issues in Litigation, a collaborative project between HB Litigation Conferences and the legal news folks at Law Street Media, and the Fastcase legal research family, which includes Docket Alarm and Judicata. If you have comments or wish to participate in one our projects, or want to tell me how insightful our guests are, please drop me a note at Editor@LitigationConferences.com. You might notice that I misused a commonly word term, one specifically common in the world of insurance, or maybe you weren't paying that much attention. That would make two of us. Also, Tom J. was just a fun interview and I hope to get him back! I like the way he explained his candor at the end. He suffers from an infliction that I wish were a pandemic. I hope you enjoy it. Tom HagyHost of the Emerging Litigation Podcast

In Today's "Moment of Truth," Saurabh and Nick sit down with Blake Masters, co-author of “Zero to One” and President of the Thiel Foundation, to discuss the future of conservatism, technology, and education in America, how to reign in big tech monopolies, and how to recover the American dream of raising a family on one single income.Blake Masters is President of the Thiel Foundation and Principal at Thiel Capital. Prior to co-writing the #1 NYT bestseller Zero to One with Peter Thiel, he co-founded Judicata, a technology startup that makes legal research and analytics software, and worked at Box and Founders Fund. Blake studied at Stanford and Stanford Law School, and lives in Tucson, Arizona with his wife and two boys.Learn more about Blake Master's work at:https://blakemasters.comhttp://www.thielfoundation.org/blake––––––Follow American Moment on Social Media:Twitter –https://twitter.com/AmMomentOrgFacebook –https://www.facebook.com/AmMomentOrgInstagram –https://www.instagram.com/ammomentorg/YouTube –https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC4qmB5DeiFxt53ZPZiW4TcgRumble –https://rumble.com/c/c-695775Check out AmCanon:https://www.americanmoment.org/amcanon/Subscribe to our Podcast, "Moment of Truth"Apple Podcasts –https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/moment-of-truth/id1555257529Spotify –https://open.spotify.com/show/5ATl0x7nKDX0vVoGrGNhAjiHeart Radio –https://www.iheart.com/podcast/269-moment-of-truth-77884750/RSS –https://feeds.acast.com/public/shows/6030c3f32982873431315653 Our GDPR privacy policy was updated on August 8, 2022. Visit acast.com/privacy for more information.

Besides its people and the quality of their free snacks, an organization's intellectual property is often its most valuable asset. Whether it's a patent or a trademark, a graphic design or proprietary market information, or just the unique way they do what they do. Companies must protect their innovations or risk significant damage to their future prospects.  Assessing the vulnerabilities of such valuable inventory is as important as it is time-consuming. But such a review involves answering the same long-set of questions posed to any organization, no matter what type. There is the problem. You have a critical invention. You don't know if it's at risk. What do you do? You contact a lawyer, of course. You go through the process, one they have managed many times before. What if you could do this yourself first, before contacting a firm? What if it took just 20 minutes and could be done from the comfort of your desk? An innovative pair of attorneys in Brussels asked that question and came up with a solution. And I had the pleasure of interviewing them. They are Crowell & Moring partner Jan-Diederik Lindemans and Judith Bussé, both part of the firm's Technology & Intellectual Property Department in Brussels. And, working with Neotalogic, they developed an interactive app that takes you through a set of attorney-crafted questions that, depending on your answers, take you to other questions. The app applies a layer of artificial intelligence to enhance the information gathering process. Listen to what these innovators had to say about the Crowell & Moring IP Check-Up application, and take it for a test drive yourself.  Or, here is a quick video of someone using the app. This podcast is the audio companion to the Journal on Emerging Issues in Litigation, a collaborative project between HB Litigation Conferences and the legal news folks at Law Street Media, and the Fastcase legal research family, which includes Docket Alarm and Judicata. If you have comments or wish to participate in one our projects, or want to tell me how insightful our guests are, please drop me a note at Editor@LitigationConferences.com. Tom HagyHost of the Emerging Litigation Podcast

Wildfires are causing more destruction in North America than at any time in recorded history.  In 2010 they consumed 3.4 million acres, but nearly tripled to devour more than 10 million acres in 2020. They also have been responsible for numerous injuries and loss of life, razing thousands of homes, displacing wildlife, destroying natural resources, and even spewing air pollution thousands of miles away. Fighting these hellish infernos is a massive, all-out-war-like undertaking. The 2020 Dixie Fire was finally brought under control with the help of 6,500 personnel (from firefighters to the people who fed them), 1,000 fire trucks, water tankers, and bulldozers, and 1,000 miles of firehose. While some fires occur naturally, set off by lightening, for example, 84% are caused by humans. And, no matter how you slice it, humans are helping create the conditions of this continental tinderbox. One group of attorneys from Baron & Budd and Dixon Diab & Chambers LLP is securing and seeking recovery for individuals, municipalities, and insurance companies that pay claims, when they can accomplish the difficult task of identifying the responsible parties. Positioned as "Wildfire Recovery Attorneys," they have done so in cases against Pacific Gas & Electric Corp. and Southern California Edison, which they have sued for allegedly failing to maintain power lines and the areas beneath them, among other things.I had the pleasure of interviewing Ed Diab, co-founder of Dixon Diab & Chambers in San Diego, about his firm's role in the litigation, what the claims are, what defenses they encounter, settlements they have secured, what evidentiary hurdles plaintiffs face, and  more.  They've been successful. Since 2018, Dixon Diab & Chambers has recovered more $1.4 billion in settlements. And there is more to come. The firm represents more than 40 public entities – including some of the largest cities and counties in California – as well as thousands of individuals and families. Ed leads the firm's mass tort practice which, in addition to wildfire litigation, represents people who allege injuries from defective drugs and medical devices.This podcast is the audio companion to the Journal on Emerging Issues in Litigation, a collaborative project between HB Litigation Conferences and the legal news folks at Law Street Media, and the Fastcase legal research family, which includes Docket Alarm and Judicata. If you have comments or wish to participate in one our projects, or want to tell me how insightful our guests are, please drop me a note at Editor@LitigationConferences.com. Thanks to Ed Diab for speaking with me about this fascinating and frightening subject, and to Baron & Budd's Scott Summy for introducing us.  For my part, I am sure my suggestion that they install smoke detectors all over the forest is complete nonsense.  Also, I spoke with a friend who majored in Latin. Even though I showed zero confidence, I apparently stumbled close to the pronunciation of flammagenitus, Latin for “fire cloud.” I promised you a photo of one. Also called pyrocumulus clouds, they look as terrifying as they sound. Tom HagyHostEmerging Litigation Podcast

As brokerages focus on enhancing user experience, they risk shifting their customer's focus from serious financial decisions to a game-like experience.  Some think this is a good thing. That it will help engage the next generation of traders. Others think it's a bad thing. That it will create a more spastic type of trader with unrealistic expectations on potential returns. State and federal regulators are focusing on digital brokerages and exploring guardrails for these types of platforms.The challenges facing traditional technology providers (volume controls, fraud, system outages, and liquidity) are now facing these digital brokerages—with real-life consequences for individuals and their savings and retirement accounts. One company that has been making headlines is Robinhood, which was on the receiving end of a $70 million fine handed down by the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, or FINRA, for what it called "systemic supervisory failures."  In coming up with the award, FINRA said it considered the "widespread and significant harm suffered by customers, including millions of customers who received false or misleading information from the firm, millions of customers affected by the firm's systems outages in March 2020, and thousands of customers the firm approved to trade options even when it was not appropriate for the customers to do so." Robinhood is also defending itself in litigation involving dozens of cases.  Will we continue to see litigation over these platforms as more and more retail customers (many young and inexperienced) realize that securities involve market risks? What's the deal?Find out! Listen to my interview with FinTech attorney Brad Rustin, a partner with Nelson Mullins. In addition to chairing the firm's Financial Services Regulatory Practice, Brad counsels  financial institutions in regulatory matters, including strategic agreements, product development, and operational compliance. A large portion of his work is on bank and non-bank partnerships involving white-label deployments, FinTech partnerships, or payments, digital assets, cryptocurrency, and lending partnerships. Brad is a Certified Anti-Money Laundering Specialist (CAMS) by ACAMS and a Certified Regulatory Compliance Manager (CRCM) by the American Bankers Association.  He received his JD, magna cum laude, from the University of South Carolina School of Law and his BA in Political Science and History, cum laude, from Furman University. And now, he is not only a guest on the Emerging Litigation Podcast, but the FinTech advisor on the  Editorial Advisory Board of the Journal on Emerging Issues in Litigation. This podcast is the audio companion to the Journal on Emerging Issues in Litigation, a collaborative project between HB Litigation Conferences and the legal news folks at Law Street Media, and the Fastcase legal research family, which includes Docket Alarm and Judicata. If you have comments or wish to participate in one our projects, or want to tell me how insightful and informative our guests are, please drop me a note at Editor@LitigationConferences.com. Thanks to Brad for speaking with me about this fascinating subject. As for me, I will stay away from "game trading." Hearing people describe it reminds me of my PacMan obsession in college, which frequently cost me many hours that I should have spent differently, and too often a functioning shoulder. Tom Hagy

Today, I will talk about the case of Jamia Masjid v. K.V. Rudrappa (since dead) by Lrs. & Others, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 792, wherein Hon'ble Supreme Court discussed the Doctrine of Res Judicata in detail.To know more about it, please visit https://www.desikanoon.co.in/2021/09/res-judicata-section-11-code-civil-procedure-cpc.htmlTelegram: https://t.me/Legal_Talks_by_DesiKanoonYouTube Channel: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCMmVCFV7-Kfo_6S42kPhz2wApple Podcasts: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/legal-talks-by-desikanoon/id1510617120Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/3KdnziPc4I73VfEcFJa59X?si=vYgrOEraQD-NjcoXA2a7Lg&dl_branch=1&nd=1Google Podcasts: https://podcasts.google.com/feed/aHR0cHM6Ly9mZWVkcy5zaW1wbGVjYXN0LmNvbS84ZTZTcGREcw?sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiuz4ifzpLxAhVklGMGHb4HAdwQ9sEGegQIARADAmazon Music: https://music.amazon.com/podcasts/4b89fb71-1836-414e-86f6-1116324dd7bc/Legal-Talks-by-Desikanoon Please subscribe and follow us on YouTube, Instagram, iTunes, Twitter, LinkedIn, Discord, Telegram and Facebook. Credits: Music by Wataboi from Pixabay Thank you for listening!

For  30 years attorney Daniel R. Karon has successfully represented plaintiffs and defendants in class-action and individual lawsuits. He's also chair of one of the leading class action conferences for lawyers, judges and law professors: the American Bar Association National Institute on Class Actions. He's passionate about educating up-and-coming lawyers. He teaches and writes extensively, and has been featured on podcasts and television news shows.  While practicing law (and some intensely serious matters), Danny became acutely aware of "a societal bias against access to justice where people who need justice the most often get it the least." One response to that was to launch Your Lovable Lawyer, a multi-media website whose goal is to "make  justice more accessible to people who don't know, can't find, or can't pay for lawyers." He endeavors to provide actionable insights regarding common legal problems. He refers to his "lovable" concept as "legal wellness," and encourages regular folks to take a proactive approach to legal matters and potential conflicts. This podcast is the audio companion to the Journal on Emerging Issues in Litigation, a collaborative project between HB Litigation Conferences and the Fastcase legal research family, which includes Full Court Press, Law Street Media, Docket Alarm and, most recently, Judicata. If you have comments or wish to participate in one our projects, or want to tell me how lovable Danny is, please drop me a note at Editor@LitigationConferences.com. Thanks to Danny for sharing with me something he clearly feels passionately about. But, I discovered, passion is just one driver. When I asked Danny about all the on-camera video work he does, his replied, "Why not? I have the hair for it."  A good a reason as any. 

Nothing illustrates the tragic consequences of building decay more than the June 24, 2021, collapse of the Champlain Towers South in Surfside, Florida, which claimed the lives of nearly 100 residents. The event raises questions about the building inspection process not only in Florida but around the country. What caused this calamity? Who is responsible? How many other buildings are in similar condition? Any compensation for the loss of life, injuries, and property damage will likely be astronomical. Where will any financial awards come from? Experienced construction law attorney Judah Lifschitz of Shapiro, Lifschitz & Schram  spoke with me about the near- and long-term impacts of the Surfside condo collapse and how it has reverberated around the country.  Judah has extensive experience in construction  matters, including power and energy construction representing clients in engineering, procurement and construction contracts and disputes. He represents governmental and private owners, regional, national and international contractors, construction managers, subcontractors, design professionals, sureties and insurance companies in disputes, trials, ADR proceedings and negotiations. Judah won one of the largest liquidated damages awards in the history of the construction industry.  Education: George Washington University, J.D.; Yeshiva University, B.A., magna cum laude. This podcast is the audio companion to the Journal on Emerging Issues in Litigation, a collaborative project between HB Litigation Conferences and the Fastcase legal research family, which includes Full Court Press, Law Street Media, Docket Alarm and, most recently, Judicata. If you have comments or wish to participate in one our projects, or want to tell me how insightful and informative Judah is, please drop me a note at Editor@LitigationConferences.com. Thanks to Judah for speaking with me about this important topic. I was especially proud that I pronounced his name correctly on the first try, though he assured me that I could in no way do more damage to it than those who have come before me. (Clearly he doesn't know me well.)Tom Hagy(pronounced HEY-ghee, for the record)

On today's show, we will discuss the case of Srihari Hanumandas Totala v. Hemant Vithal Kamat and Others, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 565, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court discussed Order VII Rule 11 (d) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (in short, “CPC”) that deals with the contingencies under which a Plaint could be rejected by the Trial Court where the suit appears from the statement in the plaint to be barred by any law. To read further about it, kindly refer to my earlier post in the year 2018 at the link pasted in the description.To know more about it, please visit https://www.desikanoon.co.in/2021/08/rejection-of-plaint-.htmlTo read further about rejection of plaint, please visit https://www.desikanoon.co.in/2018/04/supreme-court--rejection-of-plaint-order-vii-rule-11-cpc-code-civil-chhotanben-thakkar-limitation.htmlTelegram: https://t.me/Legal_Talks_by_DesiKanoonYouTube Channel: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCMmVCFV7-Kfo_6S42kPhz2wApple Podcasts: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/legal-talks-by-desikanoon/id1510617120Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/3KdnziPc4I73VfEcFJa59X?si=vYgrOEraQD-NjcoXA2a7Lg&dl_branch=1&nd=1Google Podcasts: https://podcasts.google.com/feed/aHR0cHM6Ly9mZWVkcy5zaW1wbGVjYXN0LmNvbS84ZTZTcGREcw?sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiuz4ifzpLxAhVklGMGHb4HAdwQ9sEGegQIARADAmazon Music: https://music.amazon.com/podcasts/4b89fb71-1836-414e-86f6-1116324dd7bc/Legal-Talks-by-Desikanoon Please subscribe and follow us on YouTube, Instagram, iTunes, Twitter, LinkedIn, Discord, Telegram and Facebook. Credits: Music by Wataboi from Pixabay Thank you for listening!

It's not a matter of if, but when. Of course, I'm talking about a sky speckled with commercial drones, bringing us our precious products and pharmaceuticals, or performing work in high places humans find dangerous, like inspecting bridges and buildings, monitoring crops and livestock, and keeping an eye on pipelines and oil rigs. What must companies know about deploying a drone fleet? What industries are leading the way? What are the potential legal liabilities?  How does one begin to navigate the regulatory labyrinth? If one is flying over my swimming pool taking photos, may I shoot it down? And who in their right minds would ever allow a teenage boy to operate one? Joining me to discuss this emerging area of law is Kathryn M. Rattigan, a member of the Business Litigation Group, the Data Privacy + Cybersecurity Team, and the Drone Compliance Team in the Rhode Island office of Robinson Cole.  Kathryn advises clients on these matters with expertise in the relevant Federal Aviation Administration regulations. She and her colleagues also advise clients on employee and subcontractor contracts, insurance policies, privacy regulations, state and local laws, and best practices as recommended by the National Telecommunications and Information Administration.  She handles product defect, personal injury, and property damage litigation, too.  Kathryn is a frequent contributor to the excellent Robinson Cole Data Privacy + Cybersecurity Insider blog.  She holds a J.D. from the Roger Williams University School of Law and a B.A. (magna cum laude) from Stonehill College.    This podcast is the audio companion to the Journal on Emerging Issues in Litigation, a collaborative project between HB Litigation Conferences and the Fastcase legal research family, which includes Full Court Press, Law Street Media, Docket Alarm and, most recently, Judicata. If you have comments or wish to participate in one our projects, or want to tell me how insightful and informative Kathryn is, please drop me a note at Editor@LitigationConferences.com. This podcast is based on an article she wrote for the forthcoming issues of the Journal. Just to clarify. Kathryn does own a drone, but not a "sheep drone." I regret the error, but wouldn't have it any other way.  Thanks to Kathryn for speaking with me about this fascinating area of the law. Tom Hagy

Damage awards in litigation against physicians, hospitals, and other healthcare providers have been coming in bigger and bigger, with juries awarding more than $20 million in a string of cases that should send chills down the spines of defendants and counsel. What are the factors behind this trend? Besides the severe (or even alarming)  nature of the harm alleged, what is fueling these mega verdicts? What can defense attorneys do, knowing they are facing a well-organized, well-funded plaintiffs bar? For that matter, what can defense attorneys learn from their opponents? What strategies can defense employ early in the life of a case? Joining me to discuss this high-stakes litigation is Sandra M. Cianflone of Hall Booth Smith, P.C.  Sandie counsels and defends hospitals, physicians, nurses and institutional employees in a broad spectrum of catastrophic injury and medical malpractice cases. She received her Juris Doctorate from Pace University School of Law and her undergraduate degree from Fairleigh Dickinson University.This podcast is the audio companion to the Journal on Emerging Issues in Litigation, a collaborative project between HB Litigation Conferences and the Fastcase legal research family, which includes Full Court Press, Law Street Media, Docket Alarm and, most recently, Judicata. If you have comments or wish to participate in one our projects, or want to tell me how insightful and informative Sandie is, please drop me a note at Editor@LitigationConferences.com. This podcast is based on an article she wrote for the forthcoming issues of the Journal. Note that in my introduction I have created the phrase "badly wrong," which is, itself, badly wrong.  Listen to the bitter end when Sandie and I discuss working from home, and how we really feel about family and co-workers.  Feel free to scold me at the email address provided. I hope you enjoy the interview and this professional's practical insights into defending healthcare providers. Tom Hagy

Cryptocurrency assets now exceed $1.5 trillion globally. What a great innovation, as is the magic that makes these transactions possible. Of course, I'm talking about blockchain. The possibilities are endless on both counts. No central authority. No regulators. But (there's always a but), thanks to the world's miscreants, desperados and other baddies there is escalating potential for theft of these assets whether they are held in Bitcoin or other forms of digital currency. What should businesses consider if they plan to invest in virtual assets? How might they mitigate risk? What security measures should they have in place? Is the theft of digital currency covered by insurance?  Joining me to discuss this paradigm-shattering model is Anderson Kill Partner Stephen D. Palley, a seasoned trial lawyer and litigator with extensive experience in complex commercial disputes like insurance recovery, securities litigation, and corporate governance.  Stephen has significant hands-on software development and design experience. Based in the firm's D.C. office, he is co-chair of its cross-disciplinary blockchain and virtual currency group. At several points during our conversation I referred to an article co-written by Stephen and his New York colleague Joshua Gold, titled Protecting Cryptocurrency Assets. Stephen earned his J.D. from Washington University, his M.A. from the University of Delaware, and his B.A. (cum laude) from Tufts University (Go Jumbos!). This podcast is the audio companion to the Journal on Emerging Issues in Litigation, a collaborative project between HB Litigation Conferences and the Fastcase legal research family, which includes Full Court Press, Law Street Media, Docket Alarm and, most recently, Judicata. If you have comments or wish to participate in one our projects, or want to tell me how insightful and informative Stephen is, please drop me a note at Editor@LitigationConferences.com. I hope you enjoy the interview, especially when Leo, my cat, knocked over my microphone and when Stephen educated me on the existence of the Weird Beard Festival and other whisker-based celebrations. --Tom Hagy

President Biden  has called for the doubling of offshore wind energy capacity by 2030. To say the process for getting such projects up and running is complex is an understatement. There will be plenty of obstacles to the administration's lofty goal. Where will these impediments to development arise? What role will states play? How will NGOs react to this ambitious ramp-up?Joining me to discuss this important subject is Jack Smith, a partner with Nelson Mullins in Charleston, South Carolina. Jack's practice includes hazardous waste site management and remediation, contaminated property liability negotiation, litigation, redevelopment and related regulatory counseling. He has also worked for several state and federal government environmental agencies. Jack earned his JD from the University of South Carolina School of Law and a BS in Psychology, also from the University of South Carolina.This podcast is the audio companion to the Journal on Emerging Issues in Litigation, a collaborative project between HB Litigation Conferences and the Fastcase legal research family, which includes Full Court Press, Law Street Media, Docket Alarm and, most recently, Judicata. If you have comments or wish to participate in one our projects, or want to tell me how insightful and informative Jack is, please drop me a note at Editor@LitigationConferences.com. This interview is based in part on an article Jack is writing for the Journal. I hope you enjoy the interview, and especially my solution for preventing birds from flying into windmills. I'm going to be rich. --Tom Hagy 

Artificial intelligence has the capability to truly revolutionize how litigators work, and also how companies can avoid litigation in the first place.  It can not only do the work of hundreds of people in mere seconds but can be used to predict liabilities before they become liabilities, and outcomes when disputes arise. Joining me to discuss the incredible present-day applications of AI in law and business, as well as the potential to do much more if humans will let it, is Arthur Crivella of Crivella Technologies Limited.  For decades Art has been a leader in developing and applying advanced software engineering, systems engineering and AI methodologies, and holds numerous foundation patents in the field.  Art has helped create nationally recognized engineering achievements in weaponry as well as in the metals, rubber and food industries. He was  principal design engineer in developing advanced weapons direction systems and wrap-around simulation systems for naval guided missiles. Crivella Tech supports  corporations in managing  risk and law firms in assessing liabilities. The company also supports law firms in  class action and mass tort litigation. This podcast is the audio companion to the Journal on Emerging Issues in Litigation, a collaborative project between HB Litigation Conferences and the Fastcase legal research family, which includes Full Court Press, Law Street Media, Docket Alarm and, most recently, Judicata. If you have comments or wish to participate in one our projects, or want to tell me how insightful and informative Art is, please drop me a note at Editor@LitigationConferences.com. I hope you enjoy the interview, particularly my observation that you cannot hurt a robot's feelings. --Tom Hagy

It's now been more than 18 months since the world was besieged by the novel coronavirus pandemic. In addition to the human toll, it disrupted our lives in ways big and small, new and old, as it raced across continents, first visiting North America in January 2020. There are an estimated 15,000 lawsuits relating to the outbreak, with some 350 filings directed toward the healthcare and medical communities. The number of insurance coverage suits is fast-approaching 1,800. Litigation has been initiated against aging services, hospitals, and healthcare providers, with the next anticipated wave likely to  surround vaccines themselves. What will be the basis of these claims? What defenses will we see? And what can healthcare providers do now in anticipation of this onslaught? Joining me to discuss this out-of-the-blue rash of litigation is Sandra M. Cianflone of Hall Booth Smith, P.C.  Sandie counsels and defends hospitals, physicians, nurses and institutional employees in a broad spectrum of catastrophic injury and medical malpractice cases. She received her Juris Doctorate from Pace University School of Law and her undergraduate degree from Fairleigh Dickinson University.This podcast is the audio companion to the Journal on Emerging Issues in Litigation, a collaborative project between HB Litigation Conferences and the Fastcase legal research family, which includes Full Court Press, Law Street Media, Docket Alarm and, most recently, Judicata. If you have comments or wish to participate in one our projects, or want to tell me how insightful and informative Sandie is, please drop me a note at Editor@LitigationConferences.com. This podcast is based on an article she wrote for the forthcoming issues of the Journal. I hope you enjoy the interview, and especially a brief story (after we wrap up) about Sandie's experience delivering a baby in the Age of COVID-19. I also mangled a bit of basic Spanish, for which I am ashamed (lo siento), and was a little cavalier with some statistics, for which I am mortified.  Feel free to chastise me at the email address provided. --Tom Hagy

Unscrupulous contractors have been ripping off the federal government for as long as there has been a federal government. President Lincoln, tired of being sold lame mules and rancid rations, signed the Federal Claims Act into law during The Civil War. In the last two decades the government, with the help of whistleblowers, has raked in more than $20 billion. Joining me to discuss this important civil statute is Jack Siegal of McGlinchey Stafford in Boston. Jack's practice focuses on financial services litigation, complex commercial disputes, government investigations and white-collar defense, securities litigation, regulatory proceedings, and compliance. This podcast is the audio companion to the Journal on Emerging Issues in Litigation, a collaborative project between HB Litigation Conferences and the Fastcase legal research family, which includes Full Court Press, Law Street Media, Docket Alarm and, most recently, Judicata. If you have comments or wish to participate in one our projects, or want to tell me how insightful and informative Jack is , please drop me a note at Editor@LitigationConferences.com.I hope you enjoy the interview, and especially how I managed not to include Jack's answer to whether my dog could be sued for violating the FCA. "Nope. Not a person," he said, with zero hesitation. I want to thank Jack for immediately taking on the role as Shiloh's advocate, and for speaking with me about this important law.  --Tom Hagy

The cost of ransomware to businesses is estimated to have doubled since 2019 to $20 billion, according to Coveware. Policyholders turn to their insurance policies to recover losses which average more than $230,000 per incident. More than half (56%) of ransomware victims paid the ransom to restore access to their data last year, according to a global study of 15,000 consumers conducted by global security company Kaspersky. Yet for 17% of those, paying the ransom did not guarantee the return of stolen data.Joining me to discuss an important ruling on insurance coverage for ransomware incidents Scott Godes, a partner with Barnes & Thornburg. Scott advises and represents policyholders  regarding insurance coverage for cyberattacks, data breaches and cyber security issues, business email compromises and CEO fraud, network failures, advertising injury, libel, ransomware, and personal injury claims.This podcast is the audio companion to the Journal on Emerging Issues in Litigation, a collaborative project between HB Litigation Conferences and the Fastcase legal research family, which includes Full Court Press, Law Street Media, Docket Alarm and, most recently, Judicata. If you have comments or wish to participate in one our projects, or want to tell me how insightful and informative Scott is , please drop me a note at Editor@LitigationConferences.com.I hope you enjoy the interview, and how I managed to work in Scott's gymnastics experience with zero finesse. 

Civil unrest. Peaceful protests. Massive marches. Riots. Looting.  Which of these things are not like the other? Recent social outrage over police shootings of Black people -- these events in particular -- have sent people to the streets by hundreds of thousands. In some cases these constitutionally protected activities are followed by property damage, injury and death. Observers continue to debate who is responsible for the violence.  Whatever the answer, as a very practical matter, someone has to pay for the property damage. Join me for my conversation with Vince Vitkowsky of Gfeller Laurie LLP.  Vince  possesses deep knowledge of insurance coverage matters, representing carriers in a variety of areas, e.g. cyber risk, data privacy, general liability, directors and officers liability, health, and more. He combines his experience as a veteran insurance and reinsurance lawyer with a strong background in terrorism and national security law.This podcast is the audio companion to the Journal on Emerging Issues in Litigation, a collaborative project between HB Litigation Conferences and the Fastcase legal research family, which includes Full Court Press, Law Street Media, Docket Alarm and, most recently, Judicata. If you have comments or wish to participate in one our projects, or want to tell me how insightful and informative Vince is , please drop me a note at Editor@LitigationConferences.com.I hope you enjoy the interview, and how deftly we obscured the fact that Vince lives in New York City.

Participation in labor unions is less than half of what it was 40 years ago. It has seen an uptick in the service sector, but a sharp decline in manufacturing. According to economist Heidi Shierholz decline in union rolls is partly responsible for today's yawning income inequality gap. Recently we've seen the formation of a modest union at Google and a movement among Amazon workers. We've also seen how the pandemic has shone a bright light on the fragility of our nation's workforce struggling to survive at the bottom rungs of the pay scale. Joining me to speak about these issues is Kathryn Van Deusen Hatfield, a senior managing partner at Hatfield Schwartz Law Group in New Jersey.  Kathy represents private and public sector employers in all aspects of labor and employment law, with expertise in litigating state and federal cases on behalf of employers involving Title VII, the ADA, the ADEA and the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination, and providing legal opinions and advice on personnel, employment and labor issues.  Kathy shares her insights on recent developments in the labor movement, some of the causes of its decline, how unions get a bad rap, and how, even though she represents management, she believes unions can be a good thing for everyone -- employees and companies alike. This podcast is the audio companion to the Journal on Emerging Issues in Litigation, a collaborative project between HB Litigation Conferences and the Fastcase legal research family, which includes Full Court Press, Law Street Media, Docket Alarm and, most recently, Judicata. If you have comments or wish to participate in one our projects, or want to tell me how insightful and informative David and Dan are, please drop me a note at Editor@LitigationConferences.com.I hope you enjoy the interview, and how I managed to demonstrate how little I know about sports. I feel made up for it by learning something about baseball Hall of Famer Jim Rice, who did something really cool and heroic in 1982.  

[2:13] Hylton v. U.S. Att’y Gen., No. 19-14825 (11th Cir. Mar. 31, 2021)aggravated felony; INA § 237(a)(2)(A)(iii); statutory interpretation; denaturalization; Chevron and Brand-X deference; rule of lenity; prior-construction canon [9:47] Matter of Al Sabsabi, 28 I&N Dec. 269 (BIA 2021) CIMT; impairing government functions; conspiracy, underlying offense; 18 U.S.C. § 371; selling counterfeit currency in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 473; divisibility  [14:56] Matter of Vucetic, 28 I&N Dec. 276 (BIA 2021) CIMT; DUI; unlicensed operation of a motor vehicle in violation of New York Vehicle & Traffic Law § 511(3)(a)(i); mens rea; recklessness; realistic probability test [21:48] Cruz Rodriguez v. Garland, No. 19-60456 (5th Cir. Apr. 1, 2021) res judicata; Texas robbery; nucleus of operative facts [27:53] Meza-Vazquez v. Garland, No. 15-72672 (9th Cir. Apr. 1, 2021)Equal Access to Justice Act (“EAJA”); 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d); substantially justified; asylum; LGBT; Mexico  [32:30] Silva v. Garland, No. 16-70130 (9th Cir. Mar. 30, 2021)CIMT; petty theft; Cal. Pen Code § 484(a); categorical approach; changed country condition motions to reopen; Philippines; retroactivity; Matter of Diaz Lizzaraga*Sponsors and friends of the podcast!Kurzban Kurzban Tetzeli and Pratt P.A.www.kktplaw.com/Immigration, serious injury, and business lawyers serving clients in Florida, California, and all over the world for over 40 years.Docketwisewww.docketwise.com/immigration-review"Modern immigration software & case management"*Want to become a patron of Immigration Review? Check out our Patreon page at https://www.patreon.com/immigrationreview *CONTACT INFORMATIONEmail: kgregg@kktplaw.comFacebook: "Immigration Review Podcast" or @immigrationreviewInstagram: @immigrationreviewTwitter: @immreview*About your host: https://www.kktplaw.com/attorney/gregg-kevin-a/*More episodes at: https://www.kktplaw.com/immigration-review-podcast/*Featured in the top 15 of Immigration Podcast in the U.S.! https://blog.feedspot.com/immigration_podcasts/DISCLAIMER: Immigration Review® is a podcast made available for educational purposes only. It does not provide specific legal advice. Rather, the Immigration Review® podcast offers general information and insights regarding recent immigration cases from publicly available sources. By accessing and listening to the podcast, you understand that there is no attorney-client relationship between you and the podcast host. The Immigration Review® podcast should not be used as a substitute for competent legal advice from a licensed professional attorney in your state. MUSIC CREDITS: "Loopster," "Bass Vibes," "Chill Wave," and "Funk Game Loop" Kevin MacLeod (incompetech.com) Licensed under Creative Commons: By Attribution 4.0 License http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.Support the show (https://www.patreon.com/immigrationreview)

Leave it to people to seize on any opportunity to take advantage of good intentions. The federal government has made available many millions of dollars under the CARES Act, subsets of which are the Paycheck Protection Program and SBA lending which comes with some forgiveness provisions. Fraudsters are popping up. Some are being indicted. Others are paying fines. But this is just the start since more fraud will be exposed when it comes time to pay loans back. Plus statutes of limitations will keep certain claims actionable up to five and even 10 years from now. Joining me to speak about these issues are two former federal prosecutors who have criminal defense practices in Orlando, Fla. They are David Haas of Haas Law and Dan Eckhart of Dan Eckhart  Law.   David and Dan come to the podcast with decades of experience on both sides of such claims. They discuss how the fraud is accomplished, the types of remedies involved, and how much more of this we should expect to see. This podcast is the audio companion to the Journal on Emerging Issues in Litigation, a collaborative project between HB Litigation Conferences and the Fastcase legal research family, which includes Full Court Press, Law Street Media, Docket Alarm and, most recently, Judicata. If you have comments or wish to participate in one our projects, or want to tell me how insightful and informative David and Dan are, please drop me a note at Editor@LitigationConferences.com.I hope you enjoy the interview, and how I managed to bring my own personal PPP loan application into the conversation, likely obliterating any chance that I will get a penny. 

When, in addition to damage, injury and even death, a catastrophe ravages a regional economy, should that be taken into account when valuing the business loss claims brought by a policyholder?  The UK Supreme Court recently came down on the issue in a test case based on a batch of different company policies giving some hope to policyholders. What impact will it have on COVID business interruption claims in the U.S.? How will it impact the valuation of claims for other catastrophic events like hurricanes, wildfires, and earthquakes?To discuss these issues, it was my pleasure to interview attorney Peter A. Halprin, a partner in the New York office of Pasich LLP and Christopher Mortifoglio of Procor Solutions, also in New York. Peter represents commercial policyholders in complex coverage matters ranging from data security events to natural disasters to COVID. Chris is both a certified public accountant and forensic examiner, with experience valuing claims in the wake of hurricanes Sandy and Alex, and the BP Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill.  This podcast is the audio companion to the Journal on Emerging Issues in Litigation, a collaborative project between HB and the Fastcase legal research family, which includes Full Court Press, Law Street Media, Docket Alarm and, most recently, Judicata. If you have comments or wish to participate in one our projects, or want to tell me how insightful and informative Peter and Chris are, please drop me a note at Editor@LitigationConferences.com.I hope you enjoy the interview, and how I suggested that Peter may be old enough to tell us about his experience with losses incurred by merchants sailing wooden ships during the vibrant spice trade of the 1400s. Episode is LivePublished: Feb. 23, 2021 @ 5AM EditUnpublishAdd a TranscriptGet episode better indexed by search engines.Add Chapter MarkersListeners can tap through & see what's coming up.Create a Visual SoundbiteBest way to share to social media for engagement.Share Episode OnFacebookTwitterLinkedInMore OptionsEmail Link to Episode CopyDirect Link to MP3 Copy

To consumers, class actions can be an invaluable tool when they need to level the playing field in disputes with large companies whose resources far outweigh those of  individuals.  Two important class action cases are currently before the Supreme Court.  One case, TransUnion v. Ramirez, involves innocent consumers who were erroneously added to the government's watch list for terrorists and drug smugglers. In the second, Goldman Sachs v. Arkansas Teachers, consumers seek to fend off a decision that  could limit securities class actions against companies that make generic statements about integrity before a drop in stock prices. Another important issue (not currently before the high court) is mass and forced arbitration,  something some observers say substantially impedes the ability of consumers' and employees'  to challenge corporations. To discuss these issues, it was my pleasure to interview F. Paul Bland, Jr., Executive Director of Public Justice, an organization that pursues "high impact lawsuits to combat social and economic injustice, protect the Earth's sustainability, and challenge predatory corporate conduct and government abuses." Paul has argued and won more than 40 cases that led to reported decisions for consumers, employees or whistleblowers, including one victory in the U.S. Supreme Court, and has won one or more cases in six of the U.S. Courts of Appeals and the high courts of 10 different states. This podcast is the audio companion to the Journal on Emerging Issues in Litigation, a collaborative project between HB and the Fastcase legal research family, which includes Full Court Press, Law Street Media, Docket Alarm and, most recently, Judicata. If you have comments or wish to participate in one our projects, or want to tell me how insightful and informative Paul is, please drop me a note at Editor@LitigationConferences.com.We hope you enjoy the interview, and how I slipped in mention of Schrödinger's cat which, as everyone knows (that's sarcasm and self-deprecation), is a thought experiment that illustrates an apparent paradox of quantum superposition.

More of us are working from home and, given it often has advantages, it's an arrangement that is likely to continue for many of us.  This raised the general question: Is your home officially "the office," with all the attendant rules and norms? What new risks do employers face? What new ways can employees find themselves in trouble? We're also getting vaccinated. That's great news, but can companies required employees to get the shot? Further, studies reveal that we're not all bearing the brunt of remote working evenly. Who is carrying more of the load?  Given these dramatic changes, should employers adjust their policies?     It was my pleasure to interview Stefani Schwartz, co-founder of the woman-owned employment-and-labor boutique Hatfield Schwartz in New Jersey. Stefani has devoted her legal career to representing employers in all aspects of employment law, including discrimination, harassment, retaliation, and wrongful termination matters.  Stefani will be featured in the next issue of the Journal on Emerging Issues in Litigation, a collaborative project between HB and the Fastcase legal research family, which includes Full Court Press, Law Street Media, Docket Alarm and, most recently, Judicata. If you have comments or wish to participate in one our projects, or want to tell me how awesome Stefani is, drop me a note at Editor@LitigationConferences.com.We hope you enjoy the interview, and a guest appearance by Benny, her Portuguese Water Dog, you know, because she's working from home. Stefani also shares one retail customer's quick fix for forgetting her face mask. 

As we see liability actions relating to plastics creeping into the nation's dockets, what types of claims will survive? How much more of this might we see? And if it really hits the fan, how will insurance companies respond? Will policyholders find protection in their comprehensive general liability policies? Their directors and officers policies? Other policies?  It was my pleasure to interview Mikaela Whitman for what was an informative and insightful podcast on this potentially enormous area of litigation. It's based on her article — One Word: Plastics. Two Words: Pollution Exclusion. Why CGL Policies Should Cover Plastics-Related Liabilities — which will be featured in the inaugural issue of the Journal on Emerging Issues in Litigation  in January 2021.Mikaela (mwhitman@pasichllp.com) is a partner in Pasich LLP's New York office and a member of the firm's insurance recovery practice. Her practice focuses on the representation of insureds in all phases of insurance coverage recovery, from pre-suit negotiations through alternative dispute resolution and litigation. The Journal is a collaborative project between HB and the Fastcase legal research family, which includes Full Court Press, Law Street Media, Docket Alarm and, most recently, Judicata. If you have comments or wish to participate in one our projects, or want to tell me how awesome Mikaela is, drop me a note at Editor@LitigationConferences.com.We hope you enjoy the interview.

What efficiencies have been foisted upon our nation's courts as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic?  What has worked and what has not? Are we going to see permanent implementation of things like webcam hearings and virtual trials? It was my pleasure to interview Alison Besunder on this timely and evolving subject.  It's based on her article — Crisis is the Mother of Change: How a Pandemic Sparked Progress in Courtroom Efficiency — which will be featured in the January 2021 issue of the Journal on Emerging Issues in Litigation.Alison brings extensive experience counseling clients on matters ranging from the simple to complex, helping them prevent future disputes through proactive planning and to resolve disputes that proceed to litigation. She is a frequent speaker on topics such as Estate Planning During Divorce, End of Life Decision Making, Cyber-Security for Lawyers, and Social Media and Ethics.  She operated her own firm for several years and in 2019 joined Goetz Fitzpatrick LLP.The Journal is a collaborative project between HB and the Fastcase legal research family, which includes Full Court Press, Law Street Media, Docket Alarm and, most recently, Judicata. If you have comments or wish to participate in one our projects, or want to tell me how awesome Alison is, drop me a note at Editor@LitigationConferences.com.We hope you enjoy the interview.

What can legitimate cannabis companies do to level the playing field, not only against others who walk the straight and narrow, but dealers still thriving on the black market?It was my pleasure to interview Ausra Deluard and Jennifer Oliver for what was an informative and even surprising podcast. It's based on their article — Clearing the Haze: State Laws and Private Plaintiffs Critical to Preserve Competition in Cannabis — which will be featured in the inaugural issue of the Journal on Emerging Issues in Litigation, which will release in January 2021.Ausra, who is an attorney with the global law firm Dentons LLP, has spent more than a decade advising clients in a range of antitrust matters including merger investigations, competitor collaborations, and pricing and distribution policies. She works closely with cannabis clients to help them navigate the rapidly evolving cannabis laws and regulations throughout the U.S.Jennifer is a partner at national antitrust boutique MoginRubin LLP, where she litigates and advises clients on competition issues.  Her work includes representing classes of plaintiffs in class actions, risk mitigation and regulatory advice in mergers and acquisitions, and other complex business litigation. Check out the MoginRubin Blog.The Journal is a collaborative project between HB and the Fastcase legal research family, which includes Full Court Press, Law Street Media, Docket Alarm and, most recently, Judicata. If you have comments or wish to participate in one our projects, or want to tell me how awesome Ausra and Jennifer are, drop me a note at Question@LitigationConferences.com.We hope you enjoy the interview.

Fastcase CEO and cofounder Ed Walters joins us as a guest to discuss his company’s acquisition of the innovative California legal research company Judicata. Plus, after a week off, our panel of legal journalists has a lot of news to catch up on. Among this week’s stories: Arizona approves nonlawyer ownership of law firms, ILTA wraps up its first virtual annual conference, testing finds risks in bar exam software, a bank puts out a legal tech product, and Litera and iManage both make notable acquisitions.  This week’s panelists are: Nicole Black, legal technology columnist and legaltech evangelist at MyCase; Victoria Hudgins, reporter for Legaltech News; Victor Li, assistant managing editor of the ABA Journal; Joe Patrice, editor, Above the Law; and Zach Warren, editor in chief of Legaltech News.Bob Ambrogi of LawSites blog and LawNext podcast moderates. 

Res judicata (RJ), also known as claim preclusion, is the Latin term for "a matter decided" and refers to either of two concepts in both civil law and common law legal systems: a case in which there has been a final judgment and is no longer subject to appeal; and the legal doctrine meant to bar (or preclude) relitigation of a claim between the same parties. In the case of res judicata, the matter cannot be raised again, either in the same court or in a different court. A court will use res judicata to deny reconsideration of a matter. The doctrine of res judicata is a method of preventing injustice to the parties of a case supposedly finished but perhaps also or mostly a way of avoiding unnecessary waste of resources in the court system. Res judicata does not merely prevent future judgments from contradicting earlier ones, but also prevents litigants from multiplying judgments, and confusion. Common law. In common law jurisdictions, the principle of res judicata may be asserted either by a judge or a defendant. Once a final judgment has been handed down in a lawsuit, subsequent judges who are confronted with a suit that is identical to or substantially the same as the earlier one will apply the res judicata doctrine to preserve the effect of the first judgment. A defendant in a lawsuit may use res judicata as defense. The general rule is that a plaintiff who prosecuted an action against a defendant and obtained a valid final judgment is not able to initiate another action versus the same defendant where: The claim is based on the same transaction that was at issue in the first action. The plaintiff seeks a different remedy, or further remedy, than was obtained in the first action. The claim is of such nature as could have been joined in the first action. Once a bankruptcy plan is confirmed in court action, the plan is binding on all parties involved. Any question regarding the plan which could have been raised may be barred by res judicata. The Seventh Amendment to the United States Constitution provides that no fact having been tried by a jury shall be otherwise re-examinable in any court of the United States or of any state than according to the rules of law. For res judicata to be binding, several factors must be met: The identity in the thing at suit. The identity of the cause at suit. The identity of the parties to the action. The identity in the designation of the parties involved. Whether the judgment was final. Whether the parties were given full and fair opportunity to be heard on the issue. Regarding designation of the parties involved, a person may be involved in an action while filling a given office (e.g. as the agent of another), and may subsequently initiate the same action in a differing capacity (e.g. as his own agent). In that case res judicata would not be available as a defense unless the defendant could show that the differing designations were not legitimate and sufficient. Scope. Res judicata includes two related concepts: claim preclusion and issue preclusion (also called collateral estoppel or issue estoppel), though sometimes res judicata is used more narrowly to mean only claim preclusion. Claim preclusion bars a suit from being brought again on an event which was the subject of a previous legal cause of action that has already been finally decided between the parties or those in privity with a party. Issue preclusion bars the relitigation of issues of fact or law that have already been necessarily determined by a judge or jury as part of an earlier case. It is often difficult to determine which, if either, of these concepts apply to later lawsuits that are seemingly related, because many causes of action can apply to the same factual situation and vice versa. The scope of an earlier judgment is probably the most difficult question that judges must resolve in applying res judicata. Sometimes merely part of the action will be affected. --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/law-school/message Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/law-school/support

People v. RoyalBrian and Shant discuss the past recollection recorded exception to the hearsay rule and the elements that trigger the exception.  They court examined the time element and determined that too much time had expired from the event itself to the time the recollection was recorded. McDermott Ranch v. Connolly RanchBrian and Shant discuss a case arising out of a property dispute stemming from a real estate transaction from 1958.  They unwrap a carved-out hearsay exception based on the statements being made in connection with the boundary of land of real property.  Blizzard Energy v. SchaefersBrian and Shant discuss the Sister State Money Judgment Act, taking a judgment from one state and enforcing it in another state.  The rule preserves the Res Judicata principle, in that once a matter is fully litigated, the parties are precluded from relitigating absent additional requirements.  PG&E San Bruno Fire CasesBrian and Shant discuss the allocation of attorney fees from the determination of a special master.  The agreement stated that the determination was not appealable but the language was introduced only once in the document leading to a dispute between the parties. 

Homeowners and even those with rental properties need to know whether, when, and if res judicata principles could shut down their potential foreclosure-related legal case right out of the gate. Need to know whether, when, and if, bankruptcy proecdures are available to advance their legal interests. Need to know whether, when, and if, it makes sense after sometimes multiple previous litigation and bankruptcy procedures, to go pro per in a given legal or bankruptcy or even unlawful detainer proceeding (aka pro se Federal cases), or hire an attorney. We break it all down today with Charles Marshall on the Neil Garfield Show today.      

With Judicata, Itai Gurari believes he has built a better legal research platform. A lawyer and computer scientist, his approach to designing a legal research engine was to first “map the legal genome” -- that is, map the law with extreme accuracy and granularity. The result is a research engine that returns the best results the fastest, he says. Gurari and his company also built Clerk, a tool that analyzes the strengths and weaknesses of legal briefs -- like moneyball for motions, he says. “Just as different batters have different on-base percentages, different motions have different probabilities of being granted or denied,” Gurari explains. After a stint as an associate at Jones Day a decade ago, Gurari started his first legal research company, TraceLaw.com. When that closed in 2010, he joined Google as a software engineer working on Google Scholar. In 2011, he left Google to start Judicata. With $8 million in financing from some big-name investors, including PayPal cofounder Peter Thiel and Box founders Aaron Levie and Dylan Smith, Judicata was released to the public in May 2017. In this episode of LawNext, Gurari speaks with host Bob Ambrogi about his thoughts on legal research, artificial intelligence, and what his tool Clerk has revealed about the quality of legal briefs.   Comment on this show: Record a voice comment on your mobile phone and send it to info@lawnext.com.

What are your options with disciplinary action & double jeopardy In this episode of the podcast I cover a listener question, which asks, how far back can you go with a disciplinary issue? and can you resurrect an issue that a previous manager dealt with informally but you now feel should have been dealt with as a formal disciplinary issue?  In this episode I will cover: The risks if you dismiss an employee for an issue that has previously been dealt with informally. A case where employees were 'tried' twice for the same issue by their employer and found to have been fairly dismissed. A case where an employee was given a warning to start with and then subsequently dismissed and it was found to be unfair. The test of reasonableness and why it is relevant to disciplinary decisions. Why the manager's behaviour in this scenario could be seen as bullying. What you should consider if you are in similar circumstances. Double jeopardy or res judicata in respect of employment issues. Action Points Ensure that you and any managers, supervisors and decision makers in your business are trained on your standards of conduct and understand how to handle conduct issues correctly the first time; Review your disciplinary procedure and rules and ensure that you have a good and easy to follow process in place; Seek advice if you are unsure about the situation. We offer training in respect of the correct ways to handle disciplinary processes and we can also review and advise on your procedures for you so please do get in touch if we can be of any assistance. Useful Links Sarkar v West London Mental Health NHS Trust 2010 Christou and another v London Borough of Haringey 2013 Williams v Leeds United Football Club Episode 108  of the Podcast   Please do leave any comments or observations you have on this case below. Please ensure that any comments are respectful to all views and opinions. If you would like to know more about the HR Harbour Service and how you can get unlimited support from as little as £180 per month please contact me for a no obligation discussion - alison@realemploymentlawadvice.co.uk or you can find full details here: HR Harbour Don't forget you can contact us by email alison@realemploymentlawadvice.co.uk or miranda@realemploymentlawadvice.co.uk or by telephone 01983 897003, 01722 653001 or 023 8098 2006   Big thanks to Leslies Motors who have loaned us a new Kia Ceed to trial for the month - www.lesliesmotors.co.uk

Today's episode takes a look at a tragic case currently unfolding of a pregnant young woman being detained for being in this country illegally and the Trump administration's efforts to deny her the right to an abortion. We begin with a quick procedural update on the 9th Circuit's ruling on EO-2 before taking a deep dive into the nuts and bolts behind Zarda v. Altitude Express, which we first discussed back in Episode 91.  Thanks to some great questions from our listeners, Andrew and Thomas get into the civil procedure weeds with concepts like "claim-splitting" and res judiciata. In the main segment, the guys break down Jane Doe v. Wright, and discuss whether the government can prohibit an minor alien in this country outside of legal status from seeking an abortion. Next, Andrew and Thomas discuss a prominent tweet within the skeptical community and whether it is fair to characterize the statement itself as "sexual harassment." Finally, we end with the answer to Thomas Takes the Bar Exam Question #47 about landlord responsibility and immunity.  Don't forget to following our Twitter feed (@Openargs) and like our Facebook Page so that you too can play along with #TTTBE! Recent Appearances None!  Have us on your show! Show Notes & Links The recent news regarding the 9th Circuit was reported by Bloomberg News and other outlets. We first discussed Zarda v. Altitude Express in Episode 91. New York's Human Rights Law can be found in the New York Consolidated Laws, Art. 15, § 290 et seq. We took you through the current status of abortion in our detailed two-part discussion of Planned Parenthood v. Casey in Episode 27 and Episode 28. You can read Jane Doe's complaint, as well as the en banc decision of the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit in Jane Doe v. Wright. The regulations implementing sexual harrassment under Title VII can be found at 29 C.F.R. § 1604.11. Support us on Patreon at:  patreon.com/law Follow us on Twitter:  @Openargs Facebook:  https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ And email us at openarguments@gmail.com  

Norman D. Bates, Esq. is an  authoritative expert in regards to sexual violence against children.  He is the President and founder of Liability Consultants, Inc.and author of Preventing Child Sexual Abuse in Youth-Serving Organizations: Guidelines for Managers and Parents, a joint publication of Liability Consultants, Inc., National Crime Prevention Council and The National Center for Victims of Crime Blake Masters student at Stanford Law School in 2012 when his detailed notes on Peter Thiel's (co-founder of PayPal) class “Computer Science 183: Startup” became an internet sensation. Masters and Thiel have transformed those class notes into a New York Times bestseller: “Zero to One: Notes on Startups, or How to Build the Future.”  Before writing Zero to One with Peter, Blake co-founded Judicata, a legal research technology startup, and worked at Box and Founders Fund.  He was named one of Forbes' top 30 under 30 in 2014 Devora Zack CEO of Only Connect Consulting, Inc., is the author of three books, each published globally in as many as 25 languages. Her new release is:  Singletasking: Get More Done — One Thing at a Time. An international expert in leadership development, she is an award-winning keynote speaker, consultant, and coach Michael Parrish DuDell entrepreneur, international keynote speaker, and the bestselling author of Shark Tank Jump Start Your Business the official book from ABC's hit show Shark Tank. Recently ranked as one of the top three most popular business authors by Amazon.com, Michael is a recognized television pundit and business expert    

Blake Masters is co-author of Zero to One: Notes on Startups, or How to Build the Future. He co-authored the book wth Paypal co-founder Peter Thiel after their class notes became a viral hit. Additionally, Blake is the co-founder of Judicata (legal software startup), lawyer, crossfitter, husband and father.

Ed Walters started as a lawyer in a big law firm in Washington D.C. In the late 1990's, he was approached by a client asking him to research a relatively new legal issue without using LexisNexis or WestLaw, as they were trying to reduce online legal research costs. His inability to do this set off a chain of events leading him to create the company Fastcase. His story begs the question, are lawyers simply paying too much for online legal research sources? What are some ways particularly solo and small firm attorneys can reduce research overheads in their practice? And when is it necessary to pay for LexisNexis or WestLaw? In this episode of New Solo, Adriana Linares interviews Ed Walters about his experience starting Fastcase, how it interacts with the bigger legal research companies and smaller startups, and the right steps for solo practitioners to take in choosing an online research source. Linares and Walters begin by discussing the differences between a free resource like Google Scholar, a mid-range company like Fastcase, and a larger company like LexisNexis. If an attorney has a boutique practice and needs treatises or specialized databases, Walters says, they will need a big online research company. Otherwise, the lawyer might be paying too much. He urges practitioners to check their local bar, state bar, and other associations or organizations for member benefits that often include research and even practice management tools. There are three startup companies that Walters encourages lawyers to research: Casetext, which focuses on crowdsourcing, Ravel Law, which uses data visualization, and Judicata, which uses semantic analysis to find relationships based on meanings. He encourages all lawyers, but especially those in small firms, to research different options and find the one that fits their practice best. Ed Walters is the CEO and co-founder of Fastcase, an online legal research software company based in Washington D.C. Before founding Fastcase, Ed worked at Covington and Burling where his practice focused on corporate advisory work for software companies and sports leagues, and intellectual property litigation. He has written for The Washington Post, The New York Times, The University of Chicago Law Review, The Green Bag, and Legal Times, and has spoken extensively on legal publishing around the country. He is an adjunct professor of law at the Georgetown University Law Center, where he teaches The Law of Robots. Special thanks to our sponsor, Solo Practice University.

Joining host Kelly Scanlon is Blake Masters, co-author of the best-selling book Zero to One: Notes on Startups, Or How to Build the Future.  Listen in as Masters discusses how his former university instructor, legendary entrepreneur and investor Peter Thiel,  believes we can learn to think for ourselves, find ways to create new things (rather than replicate what we already know), and change our future. Blake was a student at Stanford Law School in 2012 taking a “Computer Science 183: Startup” class instructed by EBay co-founder Peter Thiel (who was also the first outside investor in Facebook). Blake started posting his notes online, and they became an internet sensation before becoming the book to Zero to One. Before writing Zero to One with Peter, Blake co-founded Judicata, a legal research technology startup, and worked at Box and Founders Fund. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices