English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Zendy Plus

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Zendy Tools

Zendy Open

One can only hope that this poem allowed a potential dispute over plums to be settled more peacefully than the dispute over plums that gave rise to a legal malpractice suit now pending in a California trial court. The lawsuit Campagne & Assocs. v. Gerawan Farming, Inc. stems from the oral argument presented to the Supreme Court in Glickman v. Wileman Bros. & Elliott (Wileman). Wileman Brothers and Elliott, Inc. (Wileman), filed suit in 1988, challenging the constitutionality of the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937 (AMAA). An Administrative Law Judge for the Department of Agriculture held for Wileman, but was reversed by a USDA Judicial Officer. Subsequently, fifteen other litigants, including Gerawan

Can a California Litigant Prevail in an Action for Legal Malpractice Based on an Attorney's Oral Argument before the United States Supreme Court?