In the New Hampshire Business Review, Beth Deragon discusses pending House Bill 1512 and the new proposed definition of “‘employee’ used to determine whether an individual is eligible for unemployment or worker’s compensation benefits, can make a claim under the Whistleblower Protection law and is protected by the state’s wage and hour law, including overtime.”
Baker Botts LLP's Ideas blog has a feature on a rather odd ruling from the English High Court:
In a recent Chancery Court case, Diekman v. Regency GP LP, et al. (C.A. No.
Lawyers must be wary of any communication with jurors in cases the lawyers are litigating. It is universally recognized that such contact is forbidden as it could sway or influence a juror’s decision-making, even unconsciously. But how attenuated can such contact be and still be considered to fall within the definition of forbidden communication? A look at how various authorities have addressed the topic of viewing a juror’s LinkedIn account is instructive.[1]
In a cross-post on the Volokh Conspiracy and Foundation for Economic Education websites, Eugene Volokh briefly analyzes a jury nullification bill that was passed by the New Hampshire House of Representatives: