Impact of Increasing Wages on New Mexico Chile Production

Labor and Human Capital,

Torts - Damages - Impact Rule

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has held that plaintiff could recover for physical injuries resulting from fright and shock without showing a physical impact if plaintiff was in danger of physical impact because of the direction of a negligent force against him. Niederman v. Brodsky, ___ Pa. ___ , 261 A.2d 84 (1970)

Bail Practices in Allegheny County

The administration of bail involves two separate questions: (1) is the defendant eligible for bail; and (2) if he is eligible, what conditions of release should be imposed. The first question is readily answered by reference to federal and state constitutional and statutory provisions. Generally anyone charged with a non-capital offense is eligible for bail. The second question is not as easily resolved. Federal and state statutes set out only general considerations. Typical is Rule 46c of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure which provides that the amount of bail should be such as will insure the presence of the defendant, having regard to the circumstances of the offense charged, the weight of the evidence against him, the financial ability of the defendant to give bail and the character of the defendant. Relevant to the determination of conditions of release is the Eighth Amendment\u27s prohibition against excessive bail. There is, however, almost no case law construing this provision-even its applicability to state proceedings through the Fourteenth Amendment is unsettled

Amicus Brief, Lebron v. Gottlieb Memorial Hospital

Illinois Public Act 82-280, § 2-1706.5, as amended by P.A. 94-677, § 330 (eff. Aug. 25, 2005), and as codified as 735 ILCS 5/2-1706.5(a), imposes a $500,000 “cap” on the noneconomic damages that may be awarded in a medical malpractice suit against a physician or other health care professional, and a$1 million “cap” on the noneconomic damages that may be awarded against a hospital, its affiliates, or their employees. This brief will address two of the questions presented for review by the parties: 1. Does the cap violate the Illinois Constitution’s prohibition on “special legislation,” Art. IV, § 3, because it unnecessarily, arbitrarily, and irrationally grants exceptional benefits and privileges exclusively to certain classes of tort defendants. 2. Does the cap violate the Illinois Constitution’s guarantee of “equal protection,” Art. I, § 2, because it unnecessarily, arbitrarily, and irrationally imposes extraordinary burdens uniquely upon certain classes and sub-classes of tort plaintiffs