Every now and then something happens that’s unique. It’s hardly unique for defense counsel to send us a case, with his/her client’s consent and invite us to blog about it – but only once in twelve years has that happened where the result was a loss. That decision was Mantgem v. Spinal Kinetics, No.
It’s pretty easy to find well-known references to home. Home is where the heart is. Home Sweet Home. Homeward Bound. Lassie Come Home. ET phone home. Home is meant to strike up feelings of warmth, safety, happiness. No wonder it’s all over our songs, movies, and television. And, perhaps at no time more so then
We’d like the answer to that question to be – most of the time. But that’s too much to hope for. After all, lawsuits are brought in California. With its plaintiff-friendly laws, indeed, California is an often sought after venue by mass tort products liability plaintiffs. But, according to a recent California appellate court
This post is from the Reed Smith side of the blog only.
Yesterday was National Punctuation Day; it is a good time to administer a semi-colonic to turgid prose. Today we apply an exclamation mark to our unhappiness with judges whose choice of law principles seem not so, er, principled.
Last Thursday, Bexis commented on
Choice of law analyses are confounding. They involve multi-factor tests and come with histories of decisional law that rarely apply those factors consistently. When you lower the microscope on the details and struggle to find a reliable uniformity, it just isn’t there. It begins to seem as if the only real conclusion to be reached