
Month: November 2020
National Survey of COVID-19 Medical Malpractice Immunity Legislation (As of November 18, 2020)
National Survey of COVID-19 Medical Malpractice Immunity Legislation (as of November 18, 2020) [1] The below survey of federal and state legislation, guidance, and executive action provides information regarding enacted and proposed legislation and executive orders issued to provide immunity protections for liability, in certain respects, to health care professionals, facilities, and volunteers in the course of their treatment of ... Read More
U.S. Law Week Quotes Arthur D. Burger Regarding Withdrawl of Counsel for Steve Bannon
Arthur D. Burger, Chair of Jackson & Campbell P.C.’s Professional Responsibility Practice Group, was quoted in U.S. Law Week regarding the withdrawal of counsel for former White House staffer Steve Bannon following offensive public statements Bannon had made. Mr. Burger commented on the legal ethics issues associated with the withdrawal. Mr. Burger is a recognized expert on legal ... Read More
Client Alert: Batstone v. Chicago Title Ins. Co.
Earlier this week, the United States District Court for the District of Maryland issued a decision interpreting Covered Risk 5 (“someone else has a right to limit Your use of the Land”). Given the relative rarity of written decisions interpreting title policies, it is worth a review of this decision. In Batstone v. Chicago Title Ins. Co., Louise and Griffith Batstone ... Read More
SCOTUS Opinion: Scope Of Duty By BLM Protest Organizer To Be Determined By State Courts
During a Black Lives Matter demonstration in Louisiana protesting a recent police shooting, one of the officers was struck in the face by a chunk of rock causing serious injuries. No one could identify who threw the rock, so in Mckesson v. Doe, the officer sued the organizer of the protest on the theory that the demonstration was negligently staged ... Read More
SCOTUS Opinion: Court Begins Scaling Back Qualified Immunity
In Taylor v. Riojas, an inmate sued the correctional officers who confined him in a pair of “shockingly unsanitary cells,” one of which the inmate was forced to sleep in without a bunk or clothing in frigid conditions. The Fifth Circuit had held that the conditions violated the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment, but since the law ... Read More