The Goose Is Cooked?
This blog post is edited by Joseph Dunklin, Madilyn Kuperman, and Yongli Yang. Introduction to Deepfakes The term ‘deepfake’ is an amalgamation of two words, deep learning and fake, that denotes a type of artificial intelligence technology.1 Deepfake is widely used to fabricate fake but incredibly convincing videos and audio recordings,2 achieved by using… View Article
Three patients—Van Buren Adams, Olive Clark and Joe Paul Wellner—died while residents of Kentucky nursing homes or rehabilitation centers. Before they were admitted to one of the facilities, each patient designated a family member as his or her attorney-in-fact, authorizing the family member to make decisions on his or her behalf. At the time of… View Article
Anticipating a New Age for State and Local Economic Development Incentives
Recently, the Trump administration touted a deal reached with Carrier Corporation under which Carrier will receive $7 million worth of incentives from Indiana for retaining roughly 800 jobs in the state rather than moving those jobs to Mexico. The incentives provided by Indiana are a classic example of state and local tax incentives for economic development—state offerings designed to encourage the recipient to engage in in-state activities. Many commentators have observed that the incentives from Indiana are likely inconsequential for Carrier and have surmised that what really drove Carrier to retain the jobs was the favor curried with the President-elect. Whatever motivated Carrier, the Trump administration’s actions may signal a new age for state and local tax incentives for economic development, where the Federal government encourages their use as tools in the international competition for businesses. What might this age bring?
In pharmaceutical, medical device, and other mass tort litigation, plaintiffs’ attorneys commonly collect cases from plaintiffs across the country and file them together in a single preferred jurisdiction. In pharmaceutical and medical device litigation, that jurisdiction is frequently California state court. The fact that California is a frequent home to lawsuits from out-of-state plaintiffs whose claims have no meaningful connection to the state is a strong indication that plaintiffs’ attorneys perceive a litigation advantage there. This practice of filing suit in the forum perceived as most favorable—even when the claims have little or no connection to that forum—is commonly known as “forum shopping.”