News » Edward T. Kang

Archives

|

Hypothetical questions can help facilitate conversations on judgments about the perceived likelihood or potential consequences of an event or an action. They can also help reveal hidden or flawed assumptions. Supreme Court justices, for instance, often use hypothetical questions to test the outer boundaries of what the advocate is asking the court to declare and of what the court may have to decide.

In the June 20, 2024 Edition of The Legal Intelligencer, Edward T. Kang writes, “The Whole Truth: Addressing Hypothetical Questions to Lay and Expert Witnesses.” Continue reading ›

|

As a growing body of academic literature asserts, noncompetes are restraints against competition, and they are harmful to both employees and the economy. As one of the major levers that the federal government has over the economy, antitrust laws can provide significant deterrence to abuse of noncompetes by employers.

In the May 17, 2024 edition of The Legal Intelligencer, Edward T. Kang wrote, “FTC Ban on Noncompetes: Antitrust Implications of Agreements.”

Continue reading ›

| and

While asserting claims in federal court against local government is a powerful tool, it is one that should be used sparingly and carefully. Like most other litigation, such claims come with significant risks and financial costs.

In the April 12, 2024 edition of The Legal Intelligencer, Edward Kang and Kyle Garabedian co-authored “Big Troubles – Little Governments.” Continue reading ›

|

Understanding the concept of hearsay and its application to ESI evidence is crucial for practitioners to navigate the complexities of evidentiary rules effectively.

In the March 21, 2024 edition of The Legal Intelligencer, Edward T. Kang wrote “When Hearsay Meets ESI: Navigating Evidence Rules in the Digital Age.” Continue reading ›

|

Antitrust claims can successfully navigate last decade’s reforms. As market concentration intensifies, especially in the technology sector, it is crucial for class counsel to adequately represent plaintiffs and bring antitrust class actions to safeguard their rights.

In the January 23, 2024 edition of The Legal Intelligencer, Edward Kang wrote, “Collective David Against Corporate Goliaths: Named Plaintiffs’ Standing in Antitrust Class Actions.” Continue reading ›

|

Considering the difficulties for private plaintiffs to pursue and prevail on antitrust claims under the Sherman Act, Section 2, Epic’s win against Google carries significant consequences for platform operators’ liability under antitrust laws.

In the January 2, 2024 edition of The Legal Intelligencer, Edward Kang wrote, “An Antitrust Storm Brewing in the Walled Gardens: Dissecting the Antitrust Claims in ‘Epic v. Google’.” Continue reading ›

|

Litigators preparing to qualify or challenge an expert witness must be ready to navigate several obstacles in admitting or excluding expert testimony. With the new amendment to Federal Rule of Evidence 702 coming into effect, litigators should take note of changes and incorporate them into their decision-making regarding expert testimony.

In the November 22, 2023 edition of The Legal Intelligencer, Edward Kang wrote, “Battle of the Experts (Standards): ‘Frye,’ ‘Daubert’ and Federal Rule of Evidence 702.” Continue reading ›

|

Rule 106 is more than just an obscure procedural rule governing the timing of the introduction of statements. It is tied to the fundamental objective of the adversary system, enabling parties to deliver robust arguments that are forceful yet within the bounds of fairness.

In the November 2, 2023 edition of The Legal Intelligencer, Edward Kang wrote, “Use Rule 106 to Your Advantage: Introducing the Rest of the Story in Real Time”

Continue reading ›

|

Because jurisdictions vary widely in their treatment of deposition break conferences, practitioners should not assume that conversations with clients during deposition breaks will be covered by attorney-client privilege.

In the October 12, 2023 Edition of The Legal Intelligencer, Edward Kang wrote “Jurisdiction Matters: Things to Consider Before Consulting With Clients During Depositions“. Continue reading ›

|

Although Rule 408 does preclude some settlement evidence from being admitted in litigation, it is a mistake, and potentially a dangerous one, to believe that any documents or communications bearing the label of “For Settlement Purposes Only” will necessarily fall within the scope of Rule 408. Lawyers must have a clear understanding of the limitations to Rule 408’s protection of settlement evidence.

In the August 31, 2023 Edition of The Legal Intelligencer, Edward Kang wrote “Not a Blanket Protection: Understanding Limits of Protections for Settlement Evidence“. Continue reading ›

Contact Information
Philadelphia Office
123 S Broad St #1950
Philadelphia, PA 19109
Phone: (215) 525-5850
New Jersey Office
10000 Lincoln Dr E #201
Marlton, NJ 08053
Phone: (856) 266-9330
We serve clients throughout the Delaware Valley including, but not limited to, those in the following localities: Pennsylvania including Berks County, Bucks County, Chester County, Delaware County, Montgomery County, and Philadelphia County; New Jersey including Atlantic County, Burlington County, Camden County, Cape May County, Cumberland County, Gloucester County, Salem County, and Mercer County; Delaware including Kent County and New Castle County; and Maryland including Cecil County. We also serve clients in New York. View More

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

Please do not include any confidential or sensitive information in a contact form, text message, or voicemail. The contact form sends information by non-encrypted email, which is not secure. Submitting a contact form, sending a text message, making a phone call, or leaving a voicemail does not create an attorney-client relationship.

Copyright © 2024, Kang Haggerty LLC
JUSTIA Law Firm Blog Design