Law School Toolbox Podcast Episode 497: Listen and Learn -- Incidental, Reliance, and Restitution Damages (Contracts)
Ways Organizations Can Pursue Legal Collections
OK at Work: Navigating Customer Terms and Usage
Bar Exam Toolbox Podcast Episode 295: Listen and Learn -- Incidental, Reliance, and Restitution Damages (Contracts)
Bar Exam Toolbox Podcast Episode 274: Listen and Learn -- UCC Expectation Damages (Contracts)
Viaje al Pasado Legal: Una Reclamación en Piedra
Bar Exam Toolbox Podcast Episode 213: Listen and Learn -- Material Breach vs. Minor Breach (Contracts)
Law Brief®: Rich Schoenstein and Robert Heim Discuss Musk v. Twitter
4 Key Takeaways | The Future of Construction, Infrastructure and Energy Disputes in the Endemic Age
It’s Lit? Insight into the Increase in Cannabis-Related Litigation in California
Is There Liability for Terminating Contracts Related to Russia?
Basics of a Healthcare Contract: When Do You Actually Have One and What Happens if It's Breached?
Beyond Regulations: Hospice Business Contracts and Contract Disputes
Podcast - The Briefing from the IP Law Blog: Say NFT Again – I Dare You: Miramax Sues Quentin Tarantino Over Plans to Sell “Pulp Fiction” NFT
The Briefing from the IP Law Blog: Say NFT Again – I Dare You: Miramax Sues Quentin Tarantino Over Plans to Sell “Pulp Fiction” NFT
Monthly Minute | Global Supply Chain Issues
Protect Your Construction Project: Top 10 Insurance Provisions to Know
Bar Exam Toolbox Podcast Episode 119: Listen and Learn -- Anticipatory Repudiation (Contracts)
Bar Exam Toolbox Podcast Episode 95: Listen and Learn -- Promissory Estoppel
Bar Exam Toolbox Podcast Episode 93: Listen and Learn -- Constructive Eviction
A federal court in Ohio dismissed a putative class action brought by franchisee-eyewear sellers against their franchisor, Luxottica of America. Brave Optical, Inc. v. Luxottica of Am. Inc., 2025 WL 962827 (S.D. Ohio Mar. 31,...more
A federal court in California recently dismissed a putative class action by two Dunkin’ customers alleging customers were illegally charged a “dine-in fee, or other hidden fee.” Taferner v. Inspire Brands, Inc., 2025 WL...more
Le 13 février 2025, la Cour d’appel de la Colombie-Britannique (la « CACB ») a rejeté une demande d’autorisation d’interjeter appel du jugement sommaire rendu dans l’affaire Latifi v. The TDL Group Corp., confirmant que des...more
In November 2020, the Supreme Court of Canada released its decision in 1688782 Ontario Inc. v Maple Leaf Foods Inc. This is an important decision clarifying the analytical approach to the duty of care analysis in negligence...more