Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
The Zippo test has been cited by many courts as a standard of analysis for personal jurisdiction with regard to the Internet, but it has also undergone criticism. Zippo provides little guidance as to how much interactivity or commercialism is enough to justify purposeful availment. Furthermore, courts have given little direction as to how those ...
Zippo is a landmark opinion regarding personal jurisdiction for courts deciding Internet-oriented disputes, and it is one of the most frequently cited Internet law precedents. The case established a standard of jurisdictional analysis now known as the "Zippo test," or the "Zippo sliding scale test."
Precedent is a judicial decision that serves as an authority for courts when deciding subsequent identical or similar cases. [1] [2] [3] Fundamental to common law legal systems, precedent operates under the principle of stare decisis ("to stand by things decided"), where past judicial decisions serve as case law to guide future rulings, thus promoting consistency and predictability.
Prosecutors should not stretch criminal laws in ways that would be unfair to Trump and that would open the door to unwarranted prosecutions of others, write David Orentlicher and Eve Hanan.
Sometimes, with regard to a particular provision of a written constitution, only one court decision has been made. By necessity, until further rulings are made, this ruling is the leading case. For example, in Canada, "[t]he leading case on voting rights and electoral boundary readjustment is Carter.
Police must obtain a warrant in order to search digital information on a cell phone seized from an individual who has been arrested. Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. 573 U.S. 682 (2014) 2014-06-30 Closely held, for-profit corporations have free exercise rights under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993.
This case was the beginning of the plenary power legal doctrine that has been used in Indian case law to limit tribal sovereignty. Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U.S. 94 (1884) An Indian cannot make himself a citizen of the United States without the consent and the co-operation of the United States Federal government. United States v.
Some states codify what constitutes slander and libel together into the same set of laws. Some states have criminal libel laws on the books, though these are old laws which are very infrequently prosecuted. Washington State has held its criminal libel statute unconstitutional applying the state and federal constitutions to the question. [16]