Iowa Law TV® is part of the Law TV® Network, a video driven legal directory that features quality educational videos from some of the state’s premier law firms.
The legal directory includes a comprehensive listing for each law firm, including how to reach the firm directly or on social media.
U.S. District Judge Allison D. Burroughs for the District of Massachusetts, entered a default judgment in favor of Jumpsource, partially granting...
Continue Reading
Chancellor Kathaleen McCormick of the Delaware Court of Chancery wrote in January that Tesla CEO Elon Musk "wields unusually expansive managerial...
Continue Reading
Cozen O'Connor is moving into Little Rock with the hire of a former Arkansas attorney general, while Faegre Drinker's hire arrives from Troutman...
Continue Reading
"This new clemency initiative is a cornerstone of our administration's efforts to make New Jersey the state of second chances," Gov. Phil Murphy said...
Continue Reading
Amazon cited a growing trend among attorneys to corner niche markets by suing specific corporations by gleaning inside knowledge through expansive...
Continue Reading
One of the highest points of vulnerability for law firm exists when they are conducting wire transfers during a class action payment, said Todd Doss,...
Continue Reading
This article offers up some thoughts about how lawyers ought to access and manage resources in order to provide a multi-faceted, full-service...
Continue Reading
The Supreme Court appeared to lean toward vacating the Sixth Circuit’s more relaxed standard for issuing such an injunction while re-affirming what Starbucks says is the traditional four-part test for such relief.
The scathing comments from Justice Merchan came after the defense attorney represented that his client “is being very careful” to comply with the judge’s gag order.
“In 2023 alone, over 50 GIPA complaints were filed, and new suits continue to be filed in 2024,” write Kathleen Carlson, Lawrence Fogel and Colleen Brown of Sidley Austin.
The Eighth Circuit recently affirmed the Western District of Missouri’s denial of summary judgment based on qualified immunity to two individual defendants who had been sued for First Amendment retaliation under Section 1983.