Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Case history; Prior: United States v. Upjohn Co., 600 F.2d 1223 (6th Cir. 1979); cert. granted, 445 U.S. 925 (1980). Holding (1) District Court's test, of availability of attorney–client privilege, was objectionable as it restricted availability of privilege to those corporate officers who played “substantial role” in deciding and directing corporation's legal response; (2) where ...
The district court had ruled that the "law does not require knowledge of 'specific acts of infringement'," [1] and rejected Napster's assertion that, because it could not distinguish between infringing and non-infringing files, it did not have knowledge of copyright infringement by its users. The Ninth Circuit upheld this conclusion, holding ...
NLRB v. J. Weingarten, Inc., 420 U.S. 251 (1975), is a United States labor law case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States.It held that employees in unionized workplaces have the right under the National Labor Relations Act to the presence of a union steward during any management inquiry that the employee reasonably believes may result in discipline.
Supreme Court curbs EPA authority. In another Supreme Court decision, the high court ruled in a 6-3 decision along ideological lines that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency cannot force ...
Seila Law LLC v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, 591 U.S. 197 (2020) was a U.S. Supreme Court case which determined that the structure of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), with a single director who could only be removed from office "for cause", violated the separation of powers.
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.
Epic Systems Corp. v. Lewis, 584 U.S. ___ (2018), was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States on how two federal laws, the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) and the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA), relate to whether employment contracts can legally bar employees from collective arbitration.
(A "forum state" means the state in whose courts a case is being litigated.) In International Shoe, the Court's majority chose to create a new doctrine, while still adhering to a "presence" rationale. The basic formulation is: a state may exercise personal jurisdiction over an out-of-state defendant, so long as that defendant has "sufficient ...