Historians (of all groups) shouldn't act as if they were born yesterday when it emerges that high-stakes litigation is contentious and tends to leave no stone unturned. Right? Bill Childs reviews a cover story at The Nation.
Discovery and tobacco historians
- § 1920 and e-discovery costs
- Around the web, March 13
- Around the web, January 27
- "Twombly is the Logical Extension of the Mathews v. Eldridge Test to Discovery"
- Why is the Eastern District of Texas home to so many patent trolls?
- Loser pays in action: punishment for a patent troll
- Around the web, July 15
- How discovery rules enrich the legal profession at the expense of the social good
- Breaking: SCOTUS denies cert in Philip Morris USA v. Jackson
- "$7 million to sue Wal-Mart"?
- Around the web, June 18
- No jackpot justice in Escambia County tobacco suit
- Terrible 'Sunshine in Litigation Act' rises again
- SCOTUS denies cert in Compact Clause challenge to tobacco MSA
- "A nation of lawyers and judges"