|
Home, bittersweet home
Gary W. Jackson
Across the United States, home-building is booming—and
claims of construction defects have risen, too, driven
by the fast pace of building, rushed inspections, and
shoddy materials. Recent courtroom and legislative setbacks
have stripped consumers of many legal remedies, but there
are still ways to build and win a construction-defect
lawsuit.
Keep homeowners covered for
toxic injuries
Kirk R. Presley
Most people assume they’re covered by their homeowners
insurance policy if a visitor breathes carbon monoxide
fumes, eats lead paint chips, or ingests another hazardous
substance in their home. But insurance companies use pollution-exclusion
clauses to avoid paying damages in these situations. Learn
how to persuade the court that the exclusion should not
apply to your client’s claim.
Protecting the right to clean
living
Mark B. Frost, Gerald J. Williams, Samuel Merovitz, and
David M. Cedar
People in low-income neighborhoods disproportionately
risk exposure to pollution and the illnesses that accompany
it. Their communities are often the first chosen as sites
for hazardous waste disposal or heavily polluting industries.
Residents of Camden, New Jersey, are using litigation
to stop this trend, proving that poor doesn’t have
to mean powerless.
|
Features
Kids in the back seat
Susan E. Lister
When front-seat air bags in cars were found to be potentially
fatal for small children, automakers declared that “the
back is where it’s at” for kids in cars. But
children sitting in back seats have still been badly injured
and killed, even in relatively minor accidents. Litigation
involving faulty seat belts, flawed vehicle construction,
and other design factors can compensate the injured and
focus public and industry attention on this deadly problem.
Do you blog?
Rebecca Porter
Web logs, or blogs, are one of the fastest-growing Internet
trends. People write and read blogs to exchange ideas,
get news—or just entertain themselves. Blogs devoted
to legal issues offer a wealth of information and viewpoints
you won’t get elsewhere.
Televising the Supreme Court
Ronald Goldfarb
The debate over televised Supreme Court hearings has
been ongoing for several years. The justices oppose the
idea, while broadcasters say there’s no legal or
practical reason to deny Americans a chance to watch the
nation’s highest court at work. The author agrees,
saying that televised oral arguments would enhance public
trust in the Court and its decisions.
|
News & Trends
Medical patch users discover danger
beneath the surface
Major arbitration firm won’t
enforce clauses barring class actions
Law schools may refuse military
recruiters and keep federal funds
California e-discovery statute doesn’t
mandate cost-shifting, court says
Corporate executives are least trustworthy
witnesses, survey finds
Adult child may bring informed consent
claim for birth injuries
New York court allows undocumented
worker’s injury claim
Lawsuits sniff out zinc hazard in
nasal cold remedy
Wisconsin court revives public-nuisance
claim in lead paint case
Prevailing New York civil rights
plaintiffs get fees—with a caveat
Departments
President’s page
Once more unto the breach
Supreme Court review
On ‘custody’
Good counsel
Hearsay
ATLA in motion
Proposed medical courts would not
protect patients’ rights
ATLA recognizes lawyer learning
Med-mal amendments go to Florida
courts
ATLA women: Here’s your chance
to lobby Congress
Books
The Most Activist Supreme Court
in History
by Thomas M. Keck
Justice in Plainclothes:
A Theory of American Constitutional Practice
by Lawrence G. Sager
Classifieds
Lawyer Networking
Products & Services
|
