We use cookies to customise content for your subscription and for analytics.
If you continue to browse Lexology, we will assume that you are happy to receive all our cookies. For further information please read our Cookie Policy.

Search results

Order by: most recent most popular relevance



Results: 1-10 of 1,027

The AIA document B101-2007 Owner-Architect Agreement - who has rights to the instruments of service?
  • Bricker & Eckler LLP
  • USA
  • February 29 2008

An architect is an artist


Construction insurance fundamentals
  • Bricker & Eckler LLP
  • USA
  • November 2 2012

"The Heiles argue that the policy exclusions relied on by State Auto do not apply here."


Court upholds double damages and punitive damages for USERRA violation
  • Bricker & Eckler LLP
  • USA
  • March 26 2008

The federal Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA) protects the employment rights and benefits of military service members on their return from military duty


“Time is of the essence” finishing the work on time and what happens if the work is not finished on time
  • Bricker & Eckler LLP
  • USA
  • March 31 2008

The phrase “time is of the essence” can be found in most construction contracts today, but what does it mean?


Contractors pay high penalties for prevailing wage violations
  • Bricker & Eckler LLP
  • USA
  • May 7 2010

Prevailing wage is required on most Federal and Ohio construction projects


The effect of not confirming an arbitration award where a party claims collateral estoppel or res judicata
  • Bricker & Eckler LLP
  • USA
  • November 16 2009

In our last ADR Corner article, we discussed Ohio case law regarding the one-year deadline for confirming an arbitration award and the court’s analysis that a party seeking to confirm an arbitration award may do so after the one-year statutory period where there is a showing of good cause


Civil Rule 10(d)(2): an affidavit is required, but merit is entirely optional
  • Bricker & Eckler LLP
  • USA
  • June 2 2011

The Affidavit of Merit requirement in Rule 10(D)(2) was introduced in 2005 to eliminate frivolous lawsuits


Court finds costs of hard copy production must be borne by requesting party; rejects magistrate judge’s analysis of cost-shifting under Zubulake; grants leave to seek cost-shifting under Rule 26(c)
  • Bricker & Eckler LLP
  • USA
  • August 20 2008

In this case, the differences between electronic production and hard copy production were starkly highlighted, as was the difference between “production” and “copying.”


Red Bull drops famous slogan after settlement of false advertising suit
  • Bricker & Eckler LLP
  • USA
  • November 7 2014

The once popular Red Bull slogan, "Red Bull gives you wings," is now a thing of the past. Red Bull was sued for false and deceptive advertising over


Standard one-year warranty: fact or fiction?
  • Bricker & Eckler LLP
  • USA
  • April 30 2008

It is often heard from contractors, as well as owners, that “a contractor is not responsible for repairing work on a project outside of a year after the work is complete,” because the project is no longer covered by the contractor’s “standard one-year warranty.”