Category Archives: Case of First Impression

In Custodia Legis Free Webinar Honeypot

22 Sunday Nov 2020

Posted by in Case of First Impression, Federal Law, Legislative History, Library of Congress, Research, U.S. Government

≈ Comments Off on In Custodia Legis Free Webinar Honeypot

Tags

, ,

December 2020 US Law Webinars: These Are a Few of My Favorite Things, by Margaret Wood, In Custodia Legis, Law Librarians of Congress

https://blogs.loc.gov/law/2020/11/december-2020-us-law-webinars-these-are-a-few-of-my-favorite-things/?loclr=eaiclb

A CLE honeypot for those who need CLE credits to maintain bar requirements or professional paralegal designations or who simply want to improve their legal research skills. In Custodia Legis, Law Librarians of Congress, is now giving free one-hour webinars. On December 10, 2020, sign up for a review of the U.S. Code and Statutes at Large. In February, there will be a webinar on case law.

If you are asking yourself why on earth would I need to know anything about the Statutes at Large, or do not know what it is, here is a refresher: https://bit.ly/35TKW0f. If you ever have had to research the legislative intent of a federal statute, this is one of the best research tools to find it.  

I highly recommend signing up to sharpen up your research skills regardless of whether you need the CLE credits. -CCE

Are iPad Text Messages Protected Under Your State’s Wiretapping Laws?

30 Tuesday Jun 2015

Posted by in Admissibility, Appellate Law, Case of First Impression, Evidence, Government, Intellectual Property, iPad, Legal Technology

≈ Comments Off on Are iPad Text Messages Protected Under Your State’s Wiretapping Laws?

Tags

, , , , ,

iPad Texts Not Private Under Wiretap Act | The Legal Intelligencer*, The Democratic Underground.com

(The Legal Intelligencer requires subscription but is free for 5/mo articles.)

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026893652

iPads are popular in the legal and business world. It would be a good idea to check your state’s wiretapping law and determine whether your client’s and your own text iPad messages have a reasonable expectation to privacy. -CCE

An iPad does not fall within the telephone exemption under the Pennsylvania Wiretapping and Electronic Surveillance Control Act, and users of the device do not have a reasonable expectation of privacy when it comes to sending text messages, the state Superior Court has ruled in a case of first impression. . . .

Continue reading →

Patent Law’s Most Influential Supreme Court Decisions From 2005 through 2015.

12 Thursday Mar 2015

Posted by in Appellate Law, Case of First Impression, Intellectual Property, Patent Law, United States Supreme Court

≈ Comments Off on Patent Law’s Most Influential Supreme Court Decisions From 2005 through 2015.

Tags

, , , ,

Most Cited Supreme Court Patent Decisions (2005-2015), by Dennis Crouch, PATENTLYO Blog

http://tinyurl.com/mpd5ue

The list below considers all of the U.S. Supreme Court patent cases decided during the past decade (Since January 2005) and ranks them according to the number of citations.  Citation offers some insight into the influence of decisions, but is obviously limited for a number of reasons. Cases may be cited because of their importance in changing the doctrine (KSR, eBay) or simply as the court’s most recent statement of the law on an important issue (Microsoft v. i4i and KSR) or for a narrow procedural issue that applies in many cases (Unitherm). Bay’s high citation rate is also boosted because its principles have been applied broadly to injunctive relief across many areas of law. Some cases with low citation counts may also have major impacts. They may, for instance impact a small number of very important cases (Caraco) or perhaps they cause folks to change behavior so that the issue stops arising.

With this list we also have the timeline problem where older cases are more likely to be highly cited since there has been more opportunity for those cites. I Alice Corp to rise in the ranks Nautilus and Teva, on the other hand, may well flounder (based upon the Federal Circuit’s treatment of those cases thus far). . . .

Continue reading →

Oh Happy Day for Pennsylvania Personal Injury Plaintiffs.

10 Monday Feb 2014

Posted by in Appellate Law, Case of First Impression, Damages, Evidence, Jury Persuasion, Litigation, Pennsylvania Superior Court, Personal Injury, State Appellate Courts, Trial Tips and Techniques

≈ Comments Off on Oh Happy Day for Pennsylvania Personal Injury Plaintiffs.

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , ,

Appellate Case of First Impression – Future Medical Expenses Are To Be Included in Delay Damages Calculation, by Daniel E. Cummins, TORT TALK

http://www.torttalk.com/2014/02/appellate-case-of-first-impression.html

In a case of first impression, the Pennsylvania Superior Court recently ruled in Roth v. Ross and Erie Insurance Group, 977 MDA 2013, 2014 Pa. Super. 20 (Pa. Super. Feb. 7, 2014 Donohue, Ott, J.J., Platt, S.J.)(Opinion by Donohue, J.), that an award of future medical expenses in a personal injury case should be included in the calculation of delay damages due to the Plaintiff on a verdict. . . .