Multiple Pierce Atwood-ites will be arguing appeals in November:
On the First Circuit front, Monday, November 3 will see two oral arguments with PA folks:
1. Visible Systems v. Unisys Corp.
Steve Galebach from our Boston office will be arguing this one, which presents an interesting question about the right to a jury in a claim for an infringer’s profits under the Lanham Act.
2. Eastern Seaboard Concrete Construction Co., Inc. v. Gray Construction, Inc.
Gavin McCarthy represents the appellant in this matter, which goes to the issue of what sort of clarificaitons/corrections an arbitrator can subsequently make to his initial ruling.
In the Maine SJC:
1. Hallgren v. Walsh
On November 19 at 9 am, Eric Wycoff will be arguing this appeal, which goes to a resident landlord’s liability for a dog’s attack in an area under the landlord’s control.
2. Adoption of Patricia S.
I will be arguing this one, November 18 at 10:45 am. The subject of the appeal is the finality of judgments, and, in particular, the legal standard applied and facts needed under the current probate statute allowing a collateral attack on final and appealable adoptions for "fraud."
The third parties in this case, trustees, seek to nullify a 1991 adoption, on the ground that the statute relating to the requirements to obtain an adoption at the time required the adoptee to "live" in the county where the adoption was being sought. They argue that, as a legal matter, "live" meant more than the adoptee’s regular summer home where she was staying at the time of the adoption (in their view, the statute should be construed to have required something akin to domicile). So while it is undisputed that the Maine lawyer for the adopter and adoptee had advised in good faith otherwise, the trustees claim that the representation in the 1991 adoption proceeding that the adoptee was living at their summer home constituted fraud as a matter of law, supporting summary judgment in the trustees’ favor granting the nullification.