Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Connectix immediately filed a motion with the district court to summarily dismiss Sony's lawsuit. [5] After a failed attempt by Sony to appeal the case to the Supreme Court, the two companies settled out of court about a year later. On March 15, 2001, Sony purchased the VGS rights from Connectix. They discontinued the product June 30 of that ...
In this case, the Court held that the copy-edited text of public domain court documents did not "depict independent creation even a modicum of creativity." This ruling contrasted previous rulings such as Govindan v E.M. Gopalakrishna Kone and Burlington Home Shipping Pvt Ltd v Rajnish Chibber, which followed the British approach of skill and labor.
United States of America v. Microsoft Corporation, 253 F.3d 34 (D.C. Cir. 2001), was a landmark American antitrust law case at the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.
This case is considered a "classic" free speech case in constitutional law classes. [2] Related court decisions are captioned Skokie v. NSPA, Collin v. Smith, [3] and Smith v. Collin. [4] The Supreme Court ruled 5–4, per curiam.
303 Creative LLC v. Elenis, 600 U.S. 570 (2023), is a United States Supreme Court decision that dealt with the intersection of anti-discrimination law in public accommodations with the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.
United States v. Drew, 259 F.R.D. 449 (C.D. Cal. 2009), [1] was an American federal criminal case in which the U.S. government charged Lori Drew with violations of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA) over her alleged cyberbullying of her 13-year-old neighbor, Megan Meier, who had died of suicide.
Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (1986), is a United States Supreme Court case articulating the standard for a trial court to grant summary judgment.Summary judgment will lie when, taking all factual inferences in the non-movant's favor, there exists no genuine issue as to a material fact and the movant deserves judgment as a matter of law.
Case history; Prior: Humanitarian Law Project v. Mukasey, 552 F.3d 916 (9th Cir. 2009) Holding; The federal government may prohibit providing non-violent material support for terrorist organizations, including legal services and advice, without violating the free speech clause of the First Amendment. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed and ...