Corporate Law Departments Newsletter
The newsletter of the ISBA’s Corporate Law Departments Section

Browse articles by year: 2017 (9) 2016 (7) 2015 (13) 2014 (10) 2013 (12) 2012 (16) 2011 (19) 2010 (21) 2009 (34) 2008 (38) 2007 (32) 2006 (22) 2005 (14) 2004 (25) 2003 (38) 2002 (44) 2001 (61) 2000 (47) 1999 (43)

Newsletter articles from 1999

Minutes of section council meeting April 1999 Item 1. Call to order. Meeting was called to order at 12:35 p.m.
Minutes of section council meeting February 1999 The council has agreed to do nothing until the Illinois Supreme Court rules on pending retaliatory discharge cases. 
Minutes of section council meetings October 1999 1) Call to order - Matthei
New Rule 23(f) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure makes class action certifications immediately appealable By Michael Todd Scott August 1999 In June of 1997, the Standing Committee on Rules of Practice and Procedure approved a recommendation from its Advisory Committee on Civil Rules to amend Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to add section 23(f) which authorized the interlocutory appeal of class action certification rulings. 
Seventh Circuit holds that an employee can be liable for a corporation’s discovery abuse By Michael Todd Scott December 1999 In Johnson v. Kakvand, No. 97-3893 (7th Cir. Sept. 17, 1999), the Plaintiffs sued Liberty Mortgage Corp. (Liberty) and it's president and sole shareholder, Mike Kakvand, alleging violations of the Fair Housing Act, the Equal Credit Opportunity Act, and the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Practices Act. 
Spoliation of evidence: Recent expansion of an old theory By Robin P. Bissell and James M. Holston February 1999 Although the claim of spoliation has ancient roots, it is currently at the zenith of its popularity as a legal theory and litigation tactic. Cases involving alleged and actual spoliation have become front-page articles in the mainstream business press
Subject index to substantive articles in Volume 36 of The Corporate Lawyer June 1999   Supreme Court Rules in COBRA Case Involving Dual Coverage By: Kathleen S. Rosenow, No. 1
Supreme court opinion in Jacobson v. Knepper & Moga, P.C., filed on December 31, 1998 February 1999 We are asked here to consider the issue of whether an attorney who has been discharged by his law firm employer should be allowed the remedy of an action for retaliatory discharge.
Sustainable development: Gaining a competitive advantage By Dixie Lee Laswell October 1999 Sustainable development is a very broad concept affecting most aspects of our lives. Sustainable development was first defined by the Brantland Commission's "Our Common Future," which was a report of the World Commission on Environment and Development in 1987.
U.S. Supreme Court resolves issue in federal removal case By Michael Todd Scott October 1999 In Ruhrgas v. Marathon Oil Co., (May 17, 1998), the Supreme Court addressed the issue of whether subject-matter jurisdiction must be decided before personal jurisdiction in removal cases.
U.S. Supreme Court rules that Daubert factors apply to all experts, not just scientists By Michael Todd Scott April 1999 In Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993), the U.S. Supreme Court confirmed the trial judge's role as a "gatekeeper" in regards to the admissibility of expert testimony and held that Rule 702 of the Federal Rules of Evidence governs the admissibility of novel scientific evidence.
Whether a second dismissal is “with prejudice” under the “two dismissal rule” of Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 41(a)(1) is to be determined when a third action is filed not by a rule 59(e) motion By Michael Todd Scott December 1999 In CSMC v. Boeing, No. 97-56439 (9th Cir., Sept. 27, 1999), CSMC filed suit against Boeing in U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. Later, CSMC filed an identical action in L.A. Superior Court.
Willful destruction of documents during civil discovery can lead to criminal obstruction of justice charges By Dana Silver October 1999 In United States v. Lundwall, 1 F. Supp. 2d 249 (1998), the United States District Court ruled that an alleged violation of 18 U.S.C. section 1503, obstruction of justice, reaches the willful destruction of documents during civil discovery. The statute had never been applied in the context of civil discovery.