The defense in the Karen Read murder trial “has done a great job of making robust objections and engaging in terrific cross-examinations,” Professor Daniel Medwed tells Boston.com. “That should ‘preserve’ many viable issues for appeal. The success rate on appeal, however, is low in general.”
Dr. Deborah Jackson, managing director of Northeastern Law’s Center for Law, Equity and Race, provided historical context at the university's Juneteenth celebration. She reminded the audience that Black people fought for their freedom for nearly 200 years before emancipation was announced in Texas on June 19, 1865.
While attacks on vaccines at the state level and in litigation have been ongoing, the growing federal attacks led by Kennedy have made this a “multipronged attack” on vaccine infrastructure, Professor Wendy Parmet, faculty co-director of Northeastern University Law‘s Center for Health Policy and Law, tells The Washington Post.
The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit heard arguments this week at Northeastern Law, transforming Dockser Hall’s moot court room into a temporary bench for federal court hearings.
The switch by food delivery drivers to motorized two-wheeled vehicles “is really an attempt to make low-wage, high-risk labor available so that all of us can have cheap goods and services,” Professor Hilary Robinson tells the Associated Press. “It’s perhaps one of the reasons why people are starting to realize that there really is no such thing as a free lunch.”
“On platforms like YouTube and TikTok, doctors basically are like any other person,” Professor Claudia Haupt tells the Association of American Medical Colleges. “The underlying principle is that it’s so important to a democracy not to allow the state to restrict free speech that it’s worth living with some terrible advice floating around.”
“The Trump administration is trying to fundamentally reshape what notice-and-comment rulemaking is by fiat,” Professor Sharmila Murthy tells Bloomberg Law.
“Trademark infringement has been found in plenty of cases in which defendant’s mark is spelled differently from plaintiff’s but pronounced the same, even when the two terms have different meanings,” Professor Alexandra J. Roberts tells Fast Company. “The key question in infringement cases is likelihood of confusion.”
“In the case of tobacco warning labels, advocates had to demonstrate in lawsuits challenging such labels that tobacco use did cause cancer,” Professor Wendy Parmet tells Tech Policy Press. “And it’s likely that in addition to First Amendment challenges, the social media warning labels also would likely face similar tests in establishing that overuse of social media does result in mental health harms.”