In the same vein, to save time, contract drafters (and reviewers) can consider incorporating selected Common Draft sections, or even entire contract drafts, by reference and specifying any desired variations or modifications — this could be thought of as "drafting by exception" or even as like INCOTERMS on steroids.* * For clarity: The Common Draft project is not sponsored, endorsed by, or otherwise associated with the International Chamber of Commerce, which produces the INCOTERMS® 2010 rules. That's because doing so can result in destruction of the disclosing party's trade-secret rights in its confidential information after the end of the confidentiality period. An obligation to return or destroy Confidential Information might not be practical if (for example) Confidential Information is embodied in a deliverable (for example, custom-developed computer software, or a physical object) that the receiving party will have the right to keep on using; this might be the case in a services agreement.
Suggestion: If you incorporate one or more Common Draft provisions by reference, consider using your browser's "Save to PDF" or "Print to PDF" capability to preserve a copy of this deskbook for future reference. Receiving parties, of course, generally prefer to have fixed expiration dates for confidentiality obligations. PRO TIP: Unfortunately, sometimes parties forget about return-or-destruction obligations.
By far the most galvanizing and most widely reported legislative battle of the past two years was Wisconsin Gov.
Scott Walker’s “budget repair bill” that, in early 2011, largely eliminated collective bargaining rights for the state’s 175,000 public employees.1 Following this, in 20: The champions of anti-union legislation often portrayed themselves as the defenders of non-union workers—whom they characterized as hard-working private-sector taxpayers being forced to pick up the tab for public employees’ lavish pay and pensions.
The task is not made easier by the American origin of our religion clauses and the wealth of U. jurisprudence on these clauses for in the United States, there is probably no more intensely controverted area of constitutional interpretation than the religion clauses.
In January, 1997, within a month after the religious exemption was added to CAPTA, the Christian Science church got HB1104 introduced in Maryland that exempted believers in spiritual healing from all civil and criminal charges regardless of the harm to the child, using language taken verbatim from the new federal law. Also in 1997, Oregon enacted a religious defense to first- and second-degree manslaughter.
In 1998, Washington enacted the following defense to criminal mistreatment: “It is the intent of the legislature that a person who, in good faith, is furnished Christian Science treatment by a duly accredited Christian Science practitioner in lieu of medical care is not considered deprived of medically necessary health care or abandoned.” RCW 9A.42.005.
This report provides a broad overview of the attack on wages, labor standards, and workplace protections as it has been advanced in state legislatures across the country.
Specifically, the report seeks to illuminate the agenda to undermine wages and labor standards being advanced for non-union Americans in order to understand how this fits with the far better-publicized assaults on the rights of unionized employees.