By: Keith Whitson and Ira Richards
Since the Supreme Court's decision in Comcast v. Behrend, 113 S. Ct. 1426 (2013) courts evaluating expert testimony at the class certification stage may not simply accept that testimony at face value. The Supreme Court did not, however, articulate what standard should be applied in evaluating such testimony. Most courts now recognize that the standards of Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993), must be addressed in some form before the class can be certified, but courts differ on whether a "full" Daubert analysis is required, or whether some lesser analysis is permissible. In In re: Blood Reagents Antitrust Litigation, No. 12-4067 (3d Cir. April 8, 2015), the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit required what appears to be a full, rigorous analysis where opinion testimony relates to a requirement for certification.
By: Assoc. Prof. H. Murat Develioglu
In the event that more than one person is liable for the same damage, the relationship between the injured party and the liable persons – referred to as the “exterior relationship,” – and the relationship between the liable persons - are regulated differently under the abrogated Code of Obligations (“aCO”) numbered 818 and Turkish Code of Obligations (“TCO”) numbered 6098. Below, the liability of more than one person will be dealt with and, then, the differences under the said two codes will be explained.
By: Prof. Dr. H. Ercument Erdem
The Court of Arbitration for Sports (“CAS”) is an independent institution established to provide dispute settlement through mediation or arbitration for any sports-related disputes. The Statutes of Bodies Working for the Settlement of Sports-Related Disputes (“Statutes”) foresees two bodies in Article S1, the International Council of Arbitration for Sports (“ICAS”) and the CAS - both bodies are seated in Lausanne, Switzerland. The CAS is administered and financed by the ICAS.
By Carl A. Solano and Roberta A. Barsotti
For several years, Pennsylvania judges, lawyers, and (even) rulemakers have struggled to define when an order entered in an Orphans’ Court proceeding is immediately appealable. The issue, of course, is critical, because failure to take a timely appeal from such an order may forfeit all appellate rights, and (assuming that was not the party’s intent) such a failure may then lead to a malpractice action against the party’s lawyer. Defining an appealable Orphans’ Court order thus requires clear rules.
Contact: Stephen Hughes, Special Counsel and Lara Radik, Senior Associate; Carter Newell (Queensland, Australia)
Every litigator or in-house claims manager has felt the temptation to ‘just file a holding defence’. The reasons may be varied, and often sensible – perhaps the claim is not worth a great deal, it appears to have no prospects of success, there are high hopes of settlement in the immediate short term, or a strike out or other interlocutory application is to be filed which may put an end to the whole proceeding without the need to invest further costs in the defence.