Archives
May 14, 2019
Feature
- Parting gift: Federal court offers salute to its second ombudsman
- Class of Mediators
- Counselor's Corner: When distractions are gone!
- Michigan's marijuana industry now has a regulatory referee
- Daily Briefs
Column
- The life-changing magic of working a bit longer
- Freedom to contract vs. patent misuse: an analysis of post-expiration patent royalties
Business
- Why tariff war threatens Beijing's global economic ambitions
- Women entrepreneurs thrive managing talented teams and balancing many investors
- Washington to offer first 'public option' insurance in U.S.
- Minnesota Pretrial services program offers support to couple Information used by judge to help decide on defendant's release while awaiting trial
- Freedom to contract vs. patent misuse: an analysis of post-expiration patent royalties
Courts
- More 'heartbeat' abortion bans advancing in South, Midwest
- States bring price fixing suit against generic drug makers
- Pretrial services program offers support to couple
- U.S. Supreme Court Notebook
Nation
- San Francisco may ban police, city use of facial recognition
- Channeling maybe-yes, maybe-no Mueller: Speak, Bob, speak!
- Reporter vows to protect confidential source after police raid
- National Roundup
State
headlines Detroit
- Zearfoss to deliver Michigan Law commencement address ahead of planned retirement
- War with Iran fails to produce a ‘win’ that U.S and Israel were blindly seeking
- From conferences to certificates, MSU’s Indigenous Law and Policy Center leads the future of Tribal Law
- Business Law Seminar featuring 10 judges slated May 7 in Troy
- Daily Briefs
headlines National
- Exodus: Thousands of federal lawyers left their jobs by choice or by force in 2025
- Wisconsin moves to UBE to ease access-to-justice woes
- The Burton Book Review: A discussion on ‘When You Come at the King’
- Facebook, Instagram pulling ads from lawyers looking for plaintiffs ... to sue them
- Florida law school pressed to include chapter of Charlie Kirk’s Turning Point USA
- BigLaw firm faces questions over $35M bill
