Disclaimer
ADVERTISING MATERIAL www.boselaw.com/disclaimerRSS
Authors
-
-
Recent Posts
Tags
Advertising Injury Affordable Care Act alternative fee agreements Anonymous Speech Antitrust Appeals application developers Apps Arbitration attorney discipline attorney misconduct attorneys' fees Bose McKinney & Evans California California's Online Privacy Protection Act Class Actions Commercial Lines Policy Copyright Defamation developers Discovery Domain Name Duty to Defend E-Discovery Eleventh Circuit employee Evidence Experts Expert Witnesses Federal Arbitration Act Federal Courts Federal Practice Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Fifth Circuit First Amendment Forum non Conveniens Free Speech Health Care Reform Indiana Indiana Court of Appeals Indiana Supreme Court Insurance Intellectual Property Internet Law Journalist's Privilege Jurisdiction JVCA legislation life insurance Limitations Litigation Media Law Newsgathering New York Non-parties privacy penalities professional responsibility protecting online consumers Protect IP regulation of lawyers Removal Res Judicata Sam Laurin Second Circuit SOPA Spoliation Summary Judgment Supreme Court Technology The Indiana Lawyer Third Circuit UDRP university Venue web operatorsCategories
Archives
- December 2016
- May 2016
- January 2016
- January 2015
- May 2014
- February 2014
- November 2013
- July 2013
- June 2013
- May 2013
- April 2013
- March 2013
- January 2013
- December 2012
- November 2012
- September 2012
- August 2012
- May 2012
- April 2012
- March 2012
- February 2012
- January 2012
- December 2011
- November 2011
- October 2011
- September 2011
- July 2011
Monthly Archives: January 2016
SCOTUS: Unaccepted Settlement Offers Don’t Moot Class Actions
Today, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that unaccepted offers of settlement under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 68 do not moot a named plaintiff’s claims in a putative class action. In Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez, Justice Ginsburg, writing … Continue reading
