As I reported here when it launched last September, Gavelytics uses artificial intelligence to extract data from court dockets and applies analytics to reveal insights about judges, such as how they might
rule on particular matters and in what timeframe.
Not exact matches
Dear Editor, I noted with consternation and amusement that there was a letter in the Saturday, April 21st edition of Kaieteur News, titled «We await the CCJ
Ruling» — consternation because I don't share the view that a President can shape our future all
on his or her own, and amusement because I have been rendered speechless by the politics of this Dear Land, and would only write a letter to a newspaper if I wanted to be
on public record as having held a
particular position
on a
matter I thought was of
particular import.
Professor White suggests that it does
matter how opinions are written because they have important consequences for the parties in a
particular case and for the future.29 He further argues that a crucial part of legal activity is the criticism of opinions
on rational, political, and moral grounds because that is how relevant arguments are made in support of changing or retaining current
rules of law.30 For him, the bigger question «is whether law will move in the direction of trivializing human experience, and itself, or in the direction of dignifying itself and that experience.»
A recent U.S. Supreme Court decision, Daimler A.G. v. Bauman, 134 S. Ct. 746 (2014), limited that
rule, holding that a company can be sued
on any
matter only where it is «at home» (i.e. has a headquarters or near equivalent secondary headquarters, or if it is organized under that jurisdiction's laws), and otherwise can only be sued in a place that has a significant connection to the subject -
matter of the
particular lawsuit.
The
rule on conflict that protects the interests of the private client in a matrimonial
matter, or a small business dealing with its landlord, can act against the interests of sophisticated corporate clients, wishing to instruct a
particular firm because of the scale, expertise, quality and global reach of its specialist services.
7.2 - 6A Subject to
rule 7.2 - 7, if a person is receiving legal services from a legal practitioner under a limited scope retainer
on a
particular matter, a lawyer may, without the consent of the legal practitioner, approach, communicate or deal directly with the person
on the
matter, unless the lawyer receives written notice of the limited nature of the legal services being provided by the legal practitioner and the approach, communication or dealing falls within the scope of the limited scope retainer.