Inverting the model of genomics data sharing with the NHGRI Genomic Data Science Analysis, Visualization, and Informatics Lab-space

The NHGRI Genomic Data Science Analysis, Visualization, and Informatics Lab-space (AnVIL; https://anvilproject.org) was developed to address a widespread community need for a unified computing environment for genomics data storage, management, and analysis. In this perspective, we present AnVIL, describe its ecosystem and interoperability with other platforms, and highlight how this platform and associated initiatives contribute to improved genomic data sharing efforts. The AnVIL is a federated cloud platform designed to manage and store genomics and related data, enable population-scale analysis, and facilitate collaboration through the sharing of data, code, and analysis results. By inverting the traditional model of data sharing, the AnVIL eliminates the need for data movement while also adding security measures for active threat detection and monitoring and provides scalable, shared computing resources for any researcher. We describe the core data management and analysis components of the AnVIL, which currently consists of Terra, Gen3, Galaxy, RStudio/Bioconductor, Dockstore, and Jupyter, and describe several flagship genomics datasets available within the AnVIL. We continue to extend and innovate the AnVIL ecosystem by implementing new capabilities, including mechanisms for interoperability and responsible data sharing, while streamlining access management. The AnVIL opens many new opportunities for analysis, collaboration, and data sharing that are needed to drive research and to make discoveries through the joint analysis of hundreds of thousands to millions of genomes along with associated clinical and molecular data types

Trial Practice and Procedure

Developments in the law interpreting and applying the Official Code of Georgia Annotated ( O.C.G.A. ) section 9-11-9, the professional negligence affidavit pleading requirement, and Georgia\u27s various statutes of ultimate repose overshadowed the usual decisions concerning personal jurisdiction, service of process, and venue. This review will analyze the developments in these areas of trial practice and procedure in Georgia for the survey period. Also, the authors will discuss new developments concerning Georgia\u27s renewal and dismissal statutes, res judicata, and discovery

Trial Practice and Procedure

Developments in the law of personal jurisdiction and venue, the professional malpractice affidavit pleading requirement embodied by Official Code of Georgia Annotated ( O.C.G.A. ) section 9-11-9.1, and the doctrines of res judicata and collateral estoppel continued to refine the law during this survey period. Additionally, this survey reviews significant decisions discussing disqualification of jurors for cause, actions for prenatal injuries, procedure in connection with trials involving default judgment, and remedies for spoliation of evidence. Due to the number of decisions, this review seeks to analyze the most significant and practical developments in the areas of trial practice and procedure in Georgia for the survey period

Trial Practice and Procedure

The most notable and far-reaching judicial activity during this survey period dealt with the summary judgment standard applied in tort cases. Other noteworthy developments occurred in the areas of venue, renewal of actions, collateral estoppel, and bifurcation of trials in cases involving punitive damages. Only minimal legislation was enacted in the area of trial practice and procedure during the survey period. This Article focuses on the most notable decisions rendered by the judiciary and the most significant legislation touching upon trial practice and procedure in Georgia state courts

Trial Practice and Procedure

The most interesting and significant developments in the area of trial practice and procedure during the survey period came not from Georgia\u27s appellate courts but from the Georgia General Assembly. This Article will first analyze the significant legislation that came from beneath the gold dome in 1997. It will then review the most significant appellate cases

Trial Practice and Procedure

This survey period yielded several notable decisions covering the professional malpractice affidavit/pleading requirement, renewal actions, attorney-client relations, and the summary judgment standard. Refinements in the areas of insurance practice, jury qualifications, releases, default judgment, and privileges lend important guidance to practitioners, judges, and scholars in the area of trial practice and procedure. The most significant legislative development of trial practice and procedure addressed the longstanding vanishing venue doctrine

Trial Practice and Procedure

This survey period is most notable for the diversity of cases touching upon trial practice and procedure decided by the Georgia appellate courts. Among those were cases fleshing out the permissible parameters of attorney-client contractual relations, scaling back the malpractice affidavit pleading requirement, defining further what constitutes a doctor-patient relationship, interpreting the wrongful death act to determine who can properly bring a claim, and declining to apply the self-contradictory testimony rule to a party\u27s expert witness. Other important decisions addressed previously undecided evidentiary questions, confused medical providers attempting to comply with thirdparty requests for production of documents, and expanded the remedies available to Georgia plaintiffs who are the victims of negligently inflicted emotional injury. Although the legislation passed during the survey period is less diverse, it will still potentially affect trial practitioners. The General Assembly expanded the previously narrow alternatives for establishing proper venue against corporate defendants. Mandatory liability insurance policy limits were increased for bodily injury and/or death from $15,000 per person and$30,000 per incident to $25,000 per person and$50,000 per incident. Finally, in line with the service provision contained in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, plaintiffs are now allowed to seek a waiver of formal service of process in order to avoid the trouble and expense of formal service