![]() ![]() The difficulty the progressive movement had in building on its early successes resulted in a more defensive orientation aimed at trying to minimize the erosion of those advances. In hindsight, litigation victories by public interest organizations were relatively easy to achieve as the facts were often starkly presented and favorable precedent developed in the areas of standing, civil rights, judicial review, redressability and attorney's fees.īy the 1980s, a more conservative judiciary was less receptive to the sorts of claims advanced in the 1960s and 1970s and deregulated federal agencies were less receptive to efforts by advocates in the environmental, consumer, anti-poverty, and labor movements. 2 Public interest law, once identified with progressive causes, but now embracing conservative ones as well, emerged from the "test case" strategy of the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund in an era in which the federal judiciary was sympathetic to civil rights claims, government agencies could be changed through public law litigation and the challenges to seemingly clear injustices resonated with broad segments of the American people. 1 Professor Deborah Rhode describes such practice as "at mid-life" and her recent survey of public interest organizations offers compelling insights necessary for such an understanding. Planning benefits from an understanding of the history, trends, successes and limitations of the practice of public interest law. See the Sargent Shriver National Center on Poverty Law's website at Articles cited from the Clearinghouse Review: Journal of Poverty Law and Policy, published by the Shriver Center, are available to subscribers at 1.1 Introductionįor most public interest and legal services organizations, the decision whether to engage in litigation and which cases to pursue is the product of strategic planning. The purpose of this MANUAL is to assist legal aid lawyers in assessing and exercising the power of litigation most effectively. Before filing suit, the lawyer must first determine that a lawsuit is the appropriate strategy, or one of several strategies, for solving the client's particular problem or attaining a specific goal. Other tools, such as legislative and administrative advocacy, community education, direct action and use of the media, should always be considered along with litigation options. It can also be expensive, protracted and, ultimately, unsuccessful. ![]() Seekers from Ultima 8 don't have eye stalks, and instead have a mouth at the end of a flexible tail.Ĭan you name some other floating eye monsters that I could take a look at, to make sure I don't infringe on anyone's IP? Thanks.Litigation can be a powerful tool for solving problems for clients. Later, in Ultima 9, they took on more of a spidery look with long legs, and did away with eye stalks, and instead are surrounded by smaller floating eyes. So for example, Gazers from the Ultima series have eye stalks around the central eye, instead of growing like hair from top of the eye like a Beholder. So what I would like to do is look at some examples of floating eye monsters in other games and see how different they are from Beholders, and then make my monster at least as different from Beholders as those other monsters are. I know that several games have included floating eye monsters and gotten away with it, so either the Beholder trademark is very specific or WotC doesn't police it very closely. ![]() I'm just a little hesitant because Wizards of the Coast has a trademark (perhaps multiple trademarks) for the Beholder, the granddaddy of all floating eye monsters. I want to put a floating eye monster in my game. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |