Infobox Court Case name BridgemanArtLibraryv. CorelCorp. court United States District Court for the Southern District of New York image imagesize caption full name The BridgemanArtLibrary, Ltd. v ... 9789041198822 pages 405 408 chapter The BridgemanArtLibrary Ltd. v. Corel Corporation author Lewis A. Kaplan ref Second judgment Wikisourcehas the full text of s BridgemanArtLibrary, Ltd. v. CorelCorp. The BridgemanArtLibrary Ltd. v. Corel Corporation , 36 F. Supp. 2d 191 SDNY 1999 s Berne Convention ... and the law section United Kingdom As a U.S. court case, BridgemanArtLibraryv. CorelCorp ... in the second judgment of BridgemanArtLibraryv. CorelCorp. does highlight several points ... Products v. Tang Electronic Corp DEFAULTSORT BridgemanArtLibraryV. CorelCorp. Category United ... case law als BridgemanArtLibraryv. CorelCorp. ca Cas de BridgemanArtLibrary Ltd. contra Corel Corporation es Caso BridgemanArtLibrary Ltd. contra Corel Corporation fr BridgemanArtLibraryv. Corel Corporation it BridgemanArtLibrary contro Corel Corporation ms Perpustakaan Seni Bridgeman lwn. Korp. Corel ja pt Caso BridgemanArtLibrary Ltd. contra Corel Corporation ru BridgemanArtLibraryCorel vi Th vi n Ngh thu t Bridgeman ki n C ng ty Corel ... and reargument, judgment was again entered for defendants. BridgemanArtLibraryv. Corel ... The BridgemanArtLibrary Ltd. v. Corel Corporation , 36 F. Supp. 2d 191 SDNY 1999 ref name Stokes ... v. Corel , extending the reasoning in Bridgeman to cover 3D wireframe meshes of existing 3D objects ... image . Specifically following Bridgeman, the appeals court wrote, In BridgemanArtLibrary ... 2006 isbn 0226046389 isbn13 9780226046389 pages 42 46 ref The BridgemanArtLibrary itself stated ... its position . ref cite book pages Ev 56 chapter Memorandum submitted by BridgemanArtLibrary author BridgemanArtLibrary title Protecting and Preserving Our Heritage Written Evidence publisher ... more details
National Gallery South Africa the Hamburg Kunsthalle and the Barnes Foundation . BridgemanArtLibraryv. CorelCorp. The company was involved in the case BridgemanArtLibraryv. CorelCorp. , in which ...Multiple issues primarysources March 2008 refimprove March 2008 Infobox Museum name BridgemanArtLibrary image imagesize 125 caption map type map caption latitude longitude established 1972 dissolved location New York, London, Paris, Berin type Art museum visitors director curator publictransit website http www.bridgemanart.com www.bridgemanart.com The BridgemanArtLibrary , based in London , Paris , New York and Berlin , provides one of the largest archive s for reproduction s of works of art in the world. Founded in 1972 by Harriet Bridgeman , the BridgemanArtLibrary cooperates with many art gallery art galleries and museum s to gather image s. ref name archimuse cite web title Museums ... 12 28 ref The library today The BridgemanArtLibrary is a company that represents museum s, art collection s and artist s throughout the world by providing a central source of fine art for image users ... links http www.bridgemanartondemand.com BridgemanArt On Demand http bridgemaneducation.com Bridgemaneducation.com Monet Images of Monet for licensing and reproduction at BridgemanArtLibrary ... de BridgemanArtLibrary hu Bridgeman M v szeti K nyvt r .... In addition to fine art, design s, antique s, map s, architecture , furniture , glass , Ceramic art ceramics , anthropology anthropological artefacts and many other media are featured in the collection. Bridgeman also provides customers with reproduction licensing and offers advice on how ... to consumers, Bridgeman works with copyright holders to creates high quality reproductions of artists works using the latest imaging technology. Over 500 new images are added to the Bridgeman archive each week. Museums represented in the archive includethe British Museum the British Library the National ... more details
, launched February 2001 See also BridgemanArtLibrary Ltd. v. Corel Corporation InterVideo Ulead ... CREL&page quotesearch title Company Profile for CorelCorp CREL accessdate 2008 10 02 ref homepage http www.corel.com corel.com Corel Corporation from the abbreviation Co wpland Re search L aboratory ...distinguish coral Infobox company company name Corel Corporation company logo Image Corel logo.svg 150px ... Pro , WinDVD , Corel Painter Painter , Products more... revenue gain 250.5 million American dollar ... major competitors such as Ulead Systems and WordPerfect . History Corel was founded by Michael Cowpland ... was the top used word processing software at the time. Corel s job was made significantly more difficult ... brands. A few months later, it was to be three brands DeepWhite, ProCreate and Corel . Finally it was decided that the company would go back to using Corel as the company s only brand and much of the later years consists of a series of acquisition and company restructuring. Products Corel Designer Formerly Micrografx Designer, professional technical illustration software. Corel Digital Studio ... player software . CorelDRAW A vector graphics editor. Corel Graphics Suite Combination of CorelDRAW, PhotoPaint, and Capture. Corel Home Office A less expensive alternative to Microsoft Office. Corel KnockOut Professional image masking plug in. Corel Paint it touch Drawing and painting software created specifically for the Windows 7 touchscreen PCs. Corel Painter ... . Corel Photo Album A sophisticated program for organizing digital photographs, inherited from Jasc Software. Corel Photo Paint A raster graphics bitmap graphics program comparable to Adobe Photoshop , bundled with the CorelDRAW Graphics Suite. Corel SnapFire A digital photo management suite, positioned to compete with Google s Picasa offering. Corel Ventura Desktop publishing software that had a large and loyal following for its DOS version when Corel acquired it in the early ... more details
Bridgeman often refers to the BridgemanArtLibrary . Bridgeman is also a surname, and may refer to the following people compactTOC A Alexander Bridgeman, Viscount Newport C Charles Bridgeman E Edward Bridgeman F Francis Bridgeman Royal Navy officer Francis Charles Bridgeman Sir Francis Bridgeman, 3rd Baronet G Geoffrey Bridgeman George Bridgman George Bridgeman, 2nd Earl of Bradford George Bridgeman, 4th Earl of Bradford Gerald Bridgeman, 6th Earl of Bradford H Harriet Bridgeman Henry Bridgeman, 1st Baron Bradford Henry George Orlando Bridgeman J John Bridgeman bishop John Bridgeman sculptor Sir John Bridgeman, 2nd Baronet Sir John Bridgeman, 3rd Baronet Junior Bridgeman L Luke Bridgeman M Maurice Bridgeman O Orlando Bridgeman, 1st Earl of Bradford Orlando Bridgeman, 3rd Earl of Bradford Orlando Bridgeman, 5th Earl of Bradford Sir Orlando Bridgeman, 1st Baronet, of Great Lever Sir Orlando Bridgeman, 1st Baronet, of Ridley Sir Orlando Bridgeman, 2nd Baronet Sir Orlando Bridgeman, 4th Baronet P Peter Bridgeman R Reginald Bridgeman Richard Bridgeman, 7th Earl of Bradford Robert Bridgeman, 2nd Viscount Bridgeman Robin Bridgeman, 3rd Viscount Bridgeman W William Clive Bridgeman See also BridgemanArtLibraryv. CorelCorp. Bridgman surname It does not help to add disambig or hndis tags where the page only contains people who share a surname de Bridgeman ... more details
Infobox SCOTUS case Litigants Copperweld v. Independence Tube ArgueDate December 5 ArgueYear 1983 ReargueDate ReargueYear DecideDate June 19 DecideYear 1984 FullName Copperweld Corp. v. Independence Tube Corp. Citation USVol 467 USPage 752 Prior Subsequent Holding A parent company and its wholly owned subsidiary are incapable of conspiracy as defined by the Sherman Act. SCOTUS 1984 Majority Burger JoinMajority 5 LawsApplied Sherman Act Copperweld Corp. v. Independence Tube Corp. , 467 U.S. 752, 777 1984 ref cite web url http scholar.google.com scholar case?case 13539919251776882734&hl en&as sdt 2&as vis 1&oi scholarr title Copperweld Corp. v. Independence Tube Corp., 467 US 752 Supreme Court 1984 publisher Google Scholar accessdate 2011 07 11 ref , was a major U.S. Supreme Court antitrust case that held that a parent company is incapable of conspiring with its wholly owned subsidiary for purposes of Section 1 of the Sherman Act because they cannot be considered separate economic entities. Section 1 of the Sherman Act states that Every contract, combination in the form of trust or otherwise, or conspiracy, in restraint of trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations, is declared to be illegal. However, for a condition of conspiracy to exist, there must be at least two parties involved. Copperweld held that separate Incorporation business incorporation was not enough to render a parent and its subsidiary capable of conspiring, since forcibly the economic interests of a wholly owned subsidiary must be those of its parent. It does not apply to partially owned subsidiaries. ref Columbia Law Review, Vol. 86, No. 1, Jan., 1986 ref SCOTUS stub References reflist Category Anti competitive behaviour Category United States Supreme Court cases ... more details
Infobox COA case Litigants Eltra Corporation v. Barbara A. Ringer Court United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit CourtSeal File US CourtOfAppeals 4thCircuit Seal.png 146px ArgueDate June 14 ArgueYear 1978 DecideDate June 14 DecideYear 1978 FullName Eltra Corp. v. Barbara A. Ringer, International Typographic Composition Association and Advertising Typographers Association of America, Inc. Citations http scholar.google.com scholar case?case 11934981882199224096&hl en&as sdt 2&as vis 1&oi scholarr 579 F.2d 294 Prior Appeal from The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia.. Holding Found that typefaces were not protectable expression. Judges Harrison Lee Winter , Donald S. Russell , Hiram Emory Widener, Jr. Majority LawsApplied Keywords Typeface, United states copyright law Eltra Corp. v. Ringer was a case in the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit which determined that typefaces were not eligible for protection under U.S. copyright law . The United States Copyright Office had refused to register a typeface design owned by Eltra Corporation , who filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia . The district court held that the design submitted did not qualify as a work of art under the 1909 Copyright Act . The appellate court affirmed this decision. External links http www.sanskritweb.net forgers eltra.pdf text of the Fourth Circuit opinion Category United States copyright case law Category Typography Category 1978 in United States case law Typography stub ... more details
Infobox COA case Litigants Phillips v. AWH Corp. Court United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit CourtSeal File US CourtOfAppeals FederalCircuit Seal.svg 200px United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ArgueDate ArgueYear DecideDate July 12 DecideYear 2005 FullName Edward H. Phillips v. AWH Corporation, Hopeman Brothers, Inc., and Lofton Corporation Citations 415 F.3d 1303, 75 U.S.P.Q.2d 1321 Prior Subsequent Holding The most important source in the evidentiary hierarchy of claim construction is the ordinary meaning of the language of the claims themselves and other intrinsic sources like the prosecution history. Extrinsic evidence like dictionaries and expert testimony are of secondary importance. Judges En banc Court Chief Judge Paul Redmond Michel Circuit Judges Pauline Newman , Haldane Robert Mayer , Alan David Lourie , Raymond C. Clevenger , Randall Ray Rader , Alvin Anthony Schall , William Curtis Bryson , Arthur J. Gajarsa , Richard Linn , Timothy B. Dyk , and Sharon Prost Majority Bryson JoinMajority Michel, Clevenger, Rader, Schall, Gajarsa, Linn, Dyk, and Prost Concurrence Dissent Lourie JoinConcurrence Dissent Newman Dissent Mayer JoinDissent Newman LawsApplied UnitedStatesCode 35 112 Phillips v. AWH Corp. , 415 F.3d 1303 Fed. Cir. 2005 , was a case decided by the Federal Circuit that clarified the hierarchy of evidentiary sources usable for claim construction in patent law . ref Adelman, M.J., Rader, R.R., and Klancnik, G.P. Patent Law In A Nutshell . Thomson West, St. Paul, MN. 2008, p. 301 ref Factual background The patents at issue were for modular steel shell panels that could be arranged into vandalism resistant walls. The panels interlocked by means of steel baffles internal barriers meant to create fillable compartments or to deflect .... ref Phillips v. AWH Corp. , 415 F.3d 1303, 1309 11 Fed. Cir. 2005 ref Phillips appealed to the Federal ... by a person of ordinary skill in the art to which the patent pertains. The court recognized that the patentee ... more details
SCOTUSCase Litigants Celotex Corp. v. Catrett ArgueDate April 1 ArgueYear 1986 DecideDate June 25 DecideYear 1986 FullName Celotex Corporation v. Catrett, Administratrix of the Estate of Catrett USVol 477 USPage 317 Citation 106 S. Ct. 2548 91 L. Ed. 2d 265 1986 U.S. LEXIS 118 54 U.S.L.W. 4775 4 Fed. R. Serv. 3d Callaghan 1024 Prior Cert. to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit Subsequent Holding A party moving for summary judgment need only show that the opposing party lacks evidence sufficient to support its case. SCOTUS 1981 1986 Majority Rehnquist JoinMajority Marshall, Powell, O Connor Concurrence White Dissent Brennan JoinDissent Burger, Blackmun Dissent2 Stevens LawsApplied Rule 56 e of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Celotex Corp. v. Catrett , 477 U.S. 317 1986 , was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States United States Supreme Court , written by then Associate Justice later Chief Justice William Rehnquist . In Celotex , the Court held that a party moving for summary judgment need only show that the opposing party lacks ... ussc 477 317 1986 Full text opinion from Findlaw.com http www.celotex.co.uk Celotex Corp. Website http www.lawnix.com cases celotex catrett.html Case Brief for Celotex Corp. v. Catrett Category United ... States case law DEFAULTSORT Celotex Corp. V. Catrett ... the case. Issues The issue of this case was whether petitioner defendant Celotex Corp. s attempted ... party movant to the respondent facially challenging Adickes v. S.H. Kress Co. , though the Court ... of evidence . Respondent plaintiff had argued that Celotex Corp. s motion for summary judgment ... of appeals reversed the decision to grant summary judgment for Celotex Corp., but the Supreme ... is not required specifically to negate any aspects of his opponent s claims. ref Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 1986 ref References reflist See also List of United States Supreme ... more details
Infobox COA case Litigants Comcast Corp. v. FCC Court United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia CourtSeal File DC Cir seal.gif ArgueDate January 8 ArgueYear 2010 DecideDate April 6 DecideYear 2010 FullName Comcast Comcast Corporation v. Federal Communications Commission and United States of America Citations http scholar.google.com scholar case?case 12158705661002658248 600 F. 3d 642 Holding The FCC does not have ancillary jurisdiction over Comcast s Internet service under the language of the Communications Act of 1934. Judges Chief Judge David B. Sentelle Circuit Judges Arthur Raymond Randolph and David S. Tatel Majority Judge Tatel JoinMajority Chief Judge Sentelle and Judge Randolph Comcast Corp. v. FCC , ref name Opinion cite web url http www.cadc.uscourts.gov internet opinions.nsf EA10373FA9C20DEA85257807005BD63F file 08 1291 1238302.pdf title Comcast Corp. v. FCC , 600 ... providers . The Court relied on a two part test for ancillary authority, laid out in Am. Library Ass n v. FCC ref name LibraryOpinion cite web url http www.cadc.uscourts.gov internet opinions.nsf F05B877CE3D1CB7C8525742B0055410D file 04 1037b.pdf title Am. Library Ass n v. FCC , 406 F.3d 689 ... for the District of Columbia Circuit, which was the same court that heard Comcast Corp. v. FCC, to overturn ...? Don t Count on It 2011 . DEFAULTSORT Comcast Corp. v. FCC Category Federal Communications Commission ... v. FCC ref name Comcastcomment cite web url http www.comcast.com About PressRelease PressReleaseDetail.ashx?PRID 984 title Comcast Statement on U.S. Court of Appeals Decision on Comcast v. FCC date ... regarding the Comcast v. FCC decision Quote box title quote The FCC is firmly committed to promoting ... for achieving this important end. source FCC Statement on Comcast v. FCC Decision ref name FCCcomment ... on Comcast v. FCC Decision date Apr. 6, 2010 format pdf ref align left width border 0.8px fontsize ... to something Susan Crawford, Comcast v. FCC Ancillary Jurisdiction Has to Be Ancillary to Something ... more details
Article Three of the United States Constitution U.S. Const. art. III DaimlerChrysler Corp. v. Cuno , 547 ...SCOTUSCase Litigants DaimlerChrysler Corp. v. Cuno ArgueDate March 1 ArgueYear 2006 DecideDate May 15 DecideYear 2006 FullName DaimlerChrysler Corporation v. Charlotte Cuno, et al. USVol 547 USPage 332 Citation 126 S. Ct. 1854 164 L. Ed. 2d 589 2006 U.S. LEXIS 3956 74 U.S.L.W. 4233 06 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 3931 2006 Daily Journal D.A.R. 5770 19 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 185 Docket 04 1704 OralArgument http ... tax credit in federal court. ref DaimlerChrysler Corp. v. Cuno , 126 S. Ct. 36 2005 Wilkins v ... 04 1704.pdf Full text of the Court s decision .pdf DEFAULTSORT Daimlerchrysler Corp. V. Cuno Category ... standing rule articulated in Massachusetts v. Mellon , 262 U.S. 447 1923 . ref http www.law.cornell.edu supct cgi get us cite?262 447 Full text of Massachusetts v. Mellon , 262 U.S. 447 1923 at Cornell ... to dismiss motions to dismiss . ref Cuno v. DaimlerChrysler, Inc. , 154 Federal Supplement F. Supp ... as to the claims regarding the investment tax credit. ref Cuno v. Daimler Chrysler, Inc. , 386 Federal ... taxpayers, as a prior case had indicated. ref Doremus v. Board of Ed. of Hawthorne , 342 U.S. ... generally. ref Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife , 504 U.S. 555, 560 1992 http www.altlaw.org v1 cases ... Clause taxation challenge the Court had permitted in Flast v. Cohen , 392 U.S. 83 1968 , because ... See http supreme.justia.com us 392 83 case.html full text of Flast v. Cohen , 392.U.S. 83 1968 at supreme.justia.com. ... U.S. Const. art. I , 8. ref The Court explained that the right not to contribute money for the support ..., e.g., Simon v. Eastern Ky. Welfare Rights Organization , 426 U.S. 26 1976 Valley Forge Christian College v. Americans United for Separation of Church and State, Inc. , 454 U.S. 464 1982 http www.law.cornell.edu supct html historics USSC CR 0454 0464 ZS.html full text Allen v. Wright , 468 U.S. 737 1984 http supreme.justia.com us 468 737 case.html full text Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife , 504 U.S. ... more details
, killing two, and captured and tortured a fifth. ref name Bowoto v. Chevron Texaco Corp 2004 Bowoto v. Chevron Texaco Corp. , 312 F. Supp. 2d 1229 N.D. Cal. 2004 . ref Chevron claimed the protesters .... ref http www.earthrights.org legaldocs current federal complaint.html See Bowoto v. Chevron Corp. Complaint ... v. Chevron Texaco Corp 2004 It was not until June 2005 that the plaintiffs and the court learned ... law claim of crimes against humanity to go forward temporarily. ref Bowoto v. Chevron Corp. , No. C99 ... Bowoto v. Chevron Corp. , No. C99 02506SI, 2007 WL 800940 N.D. Cal. Mar. 14, 2007 . ref On December ... to hold a parent company liable for acts committed by its subsidiary. Bowoto v. Chevron Corp. is an example ... site blurbs bowoto v chevrontexaco case overview.html Center for Constitutional Rights http ccrjustice.org ourcases current cases bowoto v. chevron Chevron http www.chevron.com bowoto DEFAULTSORT Bowoto V. Chevron Corp. Category United States district court cases Category Chevron Corporation ... for resultant damages. ref Indonesian Bloodshed Provokes ExxonMobil Lawsuit X Nigeria II Bowoto v. Chevron .... References references External links Bowoto v. Chevron Trial Blog http bowotovchevron.wordpress.com ... more details
Infobox SCOTUS case Litigants Southland Corp. v. Keating ArgueDate October 4 ArgueYear 1983 DecideDate January 23 DecideYear 1984 FullName Southland Corp. v. Keating USVol 465 USPage 1 Citation Prior 167 ... LawsApplied Federal Arbitration Act , 2 Southland Corp. v. Keating , 465 United States Reports U.S. ... case Robert Lawrence Co. v. Devonshire Fabrics , 271 F2d 402. ref In the 1967 Prima Paint Corp. v. Flood & Conklin Mfg. Co. Prima Paint case ref name Prima Paint ussc 388 395 1967 ref the Court had ... had, in Moses H. Cone Memorial Hospital v. Mercury Constr. Corp. Cone Mem. Hosp. v. Mercury Constr. Corp. , upheld an appellate decision that overturned a district court s Stay of proceedings stay .... ref name Oral argument cite web title Southland Corp. v. Keating Oral Argment url http www.oyez.org ... the core purpose of a contract to arbitrate. ref name Burger opinion Southland Corp. v. Keating , 465 ... by the majority. A past Supreme Court, in Paramount Famous Lasky Corp. v. United States , ref name Lasky case Paramount Famous Lasky Corp. v. United States , 282 U.S. 30 1930 . ref had voided arbitration ... dissent Southland Corp. v. Keating , 465 U.S. 1, 22 1874 , O Connor, J., dissenting. ref She traced the majority s misreading to first Erie Railroad v. Tompkins and its holding that the courts could ... to arbitrate an antitrust claim in Tokyo ref name Mitsubishi Motors Mitsubishi Motors Corp. v. Soler ... Court first considered a case related to it in Wilko v. Swan , ref name Wilko v. Swan ussc ... law came up a few years later in Bernhardt v. Polygraphic Co. , where the court, with only Harold ... state than the one in which the contract was originally executed. ref name Bernhardt v. Polygraphic ... that the FAA was procedural and not substantive. Plainly, a power derived from Congress Art. III ... of these have been challenged in court. One case that did, Green Tree Financial Inc. v. Bazzle , ref name Green Tree Green Tree Financial Inc. v. Bazzle , ussc 539 444 2003 . ref where a South Carolina ... more details
orphan date January 2010 Infobox SCOTUS case Litigants Wallace Corp. v. NLRB ArgueDate November 15, 16 ArgueYear 1944 DecideDate December 18 DecideYear 1944 FullName Wallace Corporation v. National Labor Relations Board USVol 323 USPage 248 Citation 65 S. Ct. 238 89 L. Ed. 216 1944 U.S. LEXIS 1245 9 Lab. Cas. CCH P51,187 15 L.R.R.M. 697 Prior 141 F.2d 87 affirmed Subsequent Holding SCOTUS 1943 1945 Majority Black JoinMajority Reed, Douglas, Murphy, and Rutledge Dissent Jackson JoinDissent Stone, Roberts, and Frankfurter LawsApplied National Labor Relations Act Wallace Corp. v. NLRB ussc 323 248 1944 was a case before the United States Supreme Court . Background Labor dispute In an attempt to settle a labor dispute at a company plant, the company signed an agreement with two unions an Independent union and a CIO union that had been approved by the National Labor Relations Board . Pursuant to this agreement, at a consent election was held to determine which union would be certified by the Board as bargaining representative the company dominated Independent union won a majority of the votes cast. The company then signed a union shop contract with the union knowing that the union intended to refuse membership to employees who supported the CIO union. Independent refused to admit C. I. O. men to membership and the company discharged them. NLRB s order In a subsequent unfair labor practice proceeding the Board found that the company had engaged in unfair labor practices in two respects 1 Independent had been set up, maintained, and used by the company to frustrate the threatened unionization of its plant by the C. I. O. i.e. it was a company union and 2 the union shop contract was made by the company with knowledge that Independent intended to use the contract as a means of bringing about the discharge of former C. I. O. employees by denying them membership in Independent. Accordingly ... caselaw source case Wallace Corp. v. NLRB , 323 U.S. 248 1944 findlaw http laws.findlaw.com us ... more details
SCOTUSCase Litigants SEC v. Chenery Corp. ArgueDateA December 13 ArgueDateB ArgueYear 1946 DecideDate June 23 DecideYear 1947 FullName Securities and Exchange Commission v. Chenery Corporation USVol 332 USPage 194 Citation 332 U.S. 194, 69 P.U.R. NS 65, 67 S.Ct. 1575, 91 L.Ed. 1995 Holding SCOTUS 1949 1953 Majority Murphy JoinMajority Black, Reed, Rutledge Dissent Jackson JoinDissent Frankfurter LawsApplied Administrative Procedure Act , Public Utility Holding Company Act of 1935 SEC v. Chenery Corp. , 332 U.S. 194 1947 , is a case, often cited in administrative law Background A federal water company was accused of illegal stock manipulation. The SEC was charged with deciding whether re organization of companies that were in violation of the Public Utilities Company Holding Act was approved. The Chenerys were officers, directors, and shareholders of Federal Water Service Corporation. Originally, in the case called Chenery I, the company submitted a plan to the SEC, which the SEC did not approve. The reason that the SEC gave was that the plan violated certain standards of fraud. The first time this was heard before the Supreme Court in SEC v. Chenery Corporation 318 U.S. 80 1943 , the Court held that the acts committed by the company did not amount to common law fraud and therefore the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission Securities and Exchange Commission s stated rationale for the charges could not be sustained. On remand the SEC charged the company s officials on different grounds, under its own enabling act. The court used the case as an opportunity to discuss the merits ... of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 332 External links caselaw source case SEC v. Chenery Corp. , 332 U.S. 194 1947 findlaw http caselaw.lp.findlaw.com scripts getcase.pl?navby CASE&court US&vol 332&page 194 justia http supreme.justia.com us 332 194 case.html DEFAULTSORT Sec V. Chenery Corp. Category United States Supreme Court cases Category 1947 in United States case law Category United ... more details
, the possession or value of personal property. ref Intel Corp. v. Hamidi, 30 Cal. 4th 1342, 1347 ... renamed Former And Current Employees of Intel FACE Intel . ref Intel Corp. v. Hamidi, 30 Cal. 4th 1342 ... Intel Corp. v. Hamidi, 30 Cal. 4th 1342 2003 ref br Although some of the e mails were blocked by Intel ... Intel from sending unsolicited e mails to the company. ref Intel Corp. v. Hamidi, 30 Cal. 4th 1342, 1347 ... V. Kouroush Kenneth Hamidi and FACE Intel, No. 98AS05067 Superior Court of the State of California ... to injunctive relief based on a theory of trespass to chattels. ref Intel Corporation V. Kouroush ... more details
At Any Time. Lloyd Corporation, Ltd. ref name Lloyd cite web title LLOYD CORP., LTD. v. TANNER .... ref name Corp. cite web title LLOYD CORP., LTD. url http scholar.google.com scholar case?case 12048209321052031169&q lloyd corp. v. tanner overview&hl en&as sdt 2,22&as vis 1 accessdate 2 November 2011 ... Marshall , agreed with Donald Tanner ref name CHADGEFBA cite web title Lloyd Corp. v. Tanner, 407 U.S. ... and protected which is what Lloyd Corp. v. Tanner signified. The Founding Fathers of America certainly ... of handbills within the Mall violates . . . First Amendment rights. ref name Corp. The Court ..., and concluded that the decisions of the Court Case Marsh v. Alabama compelled affirmance. ref name Alabama cite web title Marsh v Alabama url http scholar.google.com scholar case?case 7287882985401537921 ... information is uncensored. ref name Tanner cite web title Tanner v. Lloyd url http 174.123.24.242 ... ET AL. v. LOGAN VALLEY PLAZA, INC., ET AL. url http law2.umkc.edu faculty projects ftrials conlaw ... Corp. respondent s message was directed to all members of the public, the Court concluded that the respondents ... more details
Use mdy dates date September 2010 Infobox SCOTUS case Litigants AT&T Corp. v. Hulteen ArgueDate December 10 ArgueYear 2008 DecideDate May 18 DecideYear 2009 FullName At&T Corporation, Petitioner v. Noreen Hulteen, et al., Respondent Docket 07 543 USVol USPage CitationNew Prior CV 01 01122 MJJ N.D. Cal. , affirmed 441 F.3d 653 9th Cir. , reversed U.S. Subsequent Holding The Supreme Court held that maternity leave taken before the passage of the 1978 Pregnancy Discrimination Act cannot be considered in calculating employee pension benefits. SCOTUS 2006 2009 Majority Souter JoinMajority Stevens, Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas, and Alito Concurrence Stevens Dissent Ginsburg JoinDissent Breyer LawsApplied AT&T Corp. v. Hulteen is a 2009 legal case in which the United States Supreme Court ruled that maternity leave taken before the passage of the Pregnancy discrimination 1978 Pregnancy Discrimination Act cannot be considered in calculating employee pension benefits. Background The case entered the Supreme Court s docket in October 2007 and concerned whether maternity leave taken before the passage of the Pregnancy discrimination 1978 Pregnancy Discrimination Act can be considered in calculating employee pension benefits. The Supreme Court agreed to hear the case in June 2008. The case concerns Noreen Hulteen who took maternity leave in 1968. Due to complications resulting from giving birth she was hospitalized and required surgery. She missed a total of 240 days of work due to her pregnancy and surgery, but her employer, AT&T , only gave her 30 days of paid leave. Under company policy at the time ... disabled. ref name onthedocket.org http www.onthedocket.org cases 2008 att corpv hulteen ref ... 2008 att corpv hulteen DEFAULTSORT At&T Corp. V. Hulteen Category United States Supreme Court cases ... Electric Company v. Gilbert 1976 and Geduldig v. Aiello 1974 . ref http www.answers.com topic general electric company v gilbert ref As a result of the policy, when Hulteen retired in 1994 from ... more details
Multiple issues orphan October 2010 Infobox COA case Litigants FUJIFILM CORP. V. BENUN Court United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit CourtSeal File US CourtOfAppeals FederalCircuit Seal.svg 180px ArgueDate ArgueYear DecideDate May 27 DecideYear 2010 FullName Fujifilm Corporation, Plaintiff Appellee, v. Jack C. Benun,and Jazz Products LLC, Polytech Enterprises LTD,and Polytech Shenzhen Camera Co. LTD., Defendant Appellant Citations 605 F.3d 1366 Fed. Cir. 2010 Prior Case No. 2 05 CV 1863 United States District Court for the District of New Jersey 2009 finding that that defendants infringed patents owned by Fujifilm Corporation Subsequent Holding The judgment of the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey that the defendants infringed patents owned by Fujifilm Corporation is affirmed. Judges Michel, Mayer, and Linn Majority JoinMajority Concurrence JoinConcurrence Dissent Dissent2 Dissent3 LawsApplied Fujifilm Corpv. Benun , Case citation 605 F.3d 1366 Fed. Cir. 2010 ref name case was a case in which the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the judgment made by the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey that the defendants infringed patents owned by Fujifilm Fujifilm Corporation . Factual Background ... Weil Briefing Patent Litigation June 2010.pdf Patent Law Update Fujifim Corpv. Benun, Federal ... motion . ref name case Fujifilm Corpv. Benun , http www.finnegan.com files Publication a7923b45 ..., Inc. v. LG Electronics, Inc. , the Supreme Court ruled that Intel selling chips to Quanta exhausted ... law to control the subsequent resale or use of the item sold. ref name scotusdocket Benun v. Fujifilm Corp. , no. 10 486, U.S. Supreme Court, http www.supremecourt.gov Search.aspx?FileName docketfiles ... Related Cases Quanta Computer, Inc. v. LG Electronics , http www.supremecourt.gov opinions 07pdf 06 937.pdf. 128 S. Ct. 2109 Supreme Court 2008 . Omega v. Costco , http caselaw.findlaw.com ... more details
Rudder v. Microsoft Corp. 1999 O.J. No. 3778 Sup. Ct. J. . is the leading decision on clickwrap licenses and forum selection clause s in Canada. Background Rudder brought a class action on behalf of MSN subscribers in Canada for, among other things, improperly charging MSN subscriber s credit cards violating the terms of the contract. Microsoft filed to dismiss the class action on the grounds of forum non conveniens . They argued that the contract between them and the subscribers contained a forum selection clause which gave exclusive jurisdiction to Washington state to resolve any disputes. Rudder argued that the particular clause was not valid as it was not adequately brought to the attention of the user. The provision was sufficiently important that it required special notice. Opinion of the Court Justice Winkler found in favour of Microsoft and held that the clause was enforceable. Winkler rejected Rudder s argument, stating that Admittedly, the entire Agreement cannot be displayed at once on the computer screen, but this is not materially different from a multi page written document which requires a party to turn the pages. Winkler observed that users were required to click on the I agree button to accept the terms, and that the impugned clause was no harder to read than any of the others. The sign up procedure itself required users to click I agree twice, where the second time the user was told that they would still be bound to the terms even if they do not read them all. Winkler did not find it reasonable for Rudder to argue for the enforcement of all the other terms of the contract except for the forum clause. A finding in favour of the plaintiff, said Winkler, would not advance the goals of commercial certainty. In concluding, Winkler held that Clickwrap click wrap agreements in general should be afforded the sanctity that must be given to any agreement in writing. See also List of notable Canadian lower court cases Caspi v. Microsoft Network Similar US case ... more details
SCCInfoBox case name Grant v. Torstar Corp. full case name Peter Grant v. Torstar Corporation heard date April 23, 2009 decided date December 22, 2009 citations 2009 SCC 61 history Judgment for Torstar Corp. at Ont. C.A. 2008 , 92 O.R. 3d 561 ruling Appeal and cross appeal dismissed ratio SCC 2008 Majority McLachlin, CJ. JoinMajority Binnie, LeBel, Deschamps, Fish, Charron, Rothstein and Cromwell JJ. Concurrence Dissent Abella J. LawsApplied NotParticipating Grant v. Torstar Corp. , lexum scc3 2009 61 , is a 2009 Supreme Court of Canada decision on the defences to the tort of defamation. In it, the Supreme Court ruled that the law of defamation should give way to the rights of a party to speak on matters of public interest, provided party exercises a certain level of responsibility in verifying the potentially defamatory facts. That is, the Court recognized a defence of responsible communication on matters of public interest. Background The Toronto Star , a newspaper and the defendant, published a story concerning the proposed development of a golf course on land owned by Peter Grant, the plaintiff. The stories contained comments by local residents that were critical of Grant, alleging that he was using his political influence to gain permission to build the golf course. In particular, a resident claimed that the decision to allow the golf course was a done deal . The newspaper contacted Grant for comment, however he declined. The Toronto Star published the article, and Grant sued for libel. Lower Court Rulings Trial Court The Court did not allow the defence of responsible journalism to go to the jury. As a result, the jury was left to determine whether the Star engaged in fair ... detail.php?id 4625 J Source The Canadian Journalism Project DEFAULTSORT Grant V. Torstar Corp. Category ... Court of Canada cases McLachlin Court New York Times Co. v. Sullivan N.Y. Times v. Sullivan , 376 ... courts. Reynolds v Times Newspapers Ltd , 1999 4 All E.R. 609, a similar case in the U.K. Dean Jobb ... more details
SCCInfoBox case name Robertson v. Thomson Corp. full case name Heather Robertson v. Thomson Corp. heard date December 6, 2005 decided date October 12, 2006 citations 2006 SCC 43 history Judgment for Thomson at Ont. C.A. 2004 , 72 O.R. 3d 481 ruling Robertson appeal dismissed. Cross appeal allowed on CD Rom issue. ratio SCC 2006 Majority LeBel and Fish JJ. JoinMajority Bastarache, Deschamps and Rothstein JJ. Concurrence Dissent Abella J. JoinConcurrence Dissent McLachlin C.J. and Binnie and Charron JJ. LawsApplied NotParticipating Robertson v. Thomson Corp. , lexum scc3 2006 43 2 363 is a 2006 Supreme Court of Canada decision on the ownership of copyright in published text that are stored in databases. The ruling held that though a newspaper held the copyright in the collection and the arrangement of freelance articles and in its newspaper, it could not publish the articles within a database. Publication within the database would remove the articles from the context of the collective work and were therefore their publication as such was not within the rights held by the newspaper. Background In 1995, Heather Robertson , a freelance writer, wrote two articles that were published in the print edition of the Globe and Mail . Later, the newspaper placed copies of her articles in three databases, including Info Globe Online, an online database of Globe and Mail articles, as well as the Canadian Periodical Index. The databases did not contain many aspects of the print version of the Globe and Mail. They did not contain the advertisements, some tables, photographs, artwork, photo captions, birth and death notices, financial tables, weather forecasts and some design elements. Heather Robertson objected to the presence of her articles in the databases and sued the Globe and Mail for unauthorized ... Times Co. v. Tasini Tasini that the databases were not a reproduction of the original collected work ... granted to the newspaper publisher by the author. See also New York Times Co. v. Tasini a similar ... more details
Microsoft Corpv. Zamos was litigation between Microsoft and David Zamos, a student at Kent State and the University of Akron in the United States . Microsoft accused Zamos of illegally reselling his student discounts and allowances discount ed copies of Windows XP Pro and Microsoft Office on eBay . Zamos countersued Microsoft for making false claims. When Zamos sent a press release to his local newspaper, the case received international press coverage. At issue was the fact that Zamos acquired Microsoft software at a discount for academic use, then re sold it to the general public on eBay for a profit. Zamos contends, and can document, that he found the software unsuitable when he realized it required him to format his computer s hard drive . He attempted to return the software, first at the University of Akron s bookstore, then directly to Microsoft. When both of these attempted returns were denied, Zamos put the software up for sale on eBay in two auction s, the second of which was cancelled at Microsoft s request. When he successfully re instated the auction and completed the sale, he was sued under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act . His profit was 143.50 US dollars USD . On January 3, 2005 Zamos filed a countersuit . In it he pointed out that Microsoft s claim did not represent the facts of his case, and appeared to be a Boilerplate text boilerplate suit like thousands of others the company has filed. He exhibited a page from the claim that was identical to a page in another, except that some plural words had been changed to singular ones. The respective verbs had not been changed to their singular forms, so the page contained grammatical errors. These counterclaims seem to have failed, as Zamos was not a qualified end user . So he filed more claims, contending among other things that the unopened software had never presented him with the End User License Agreement and thus the opportunity to become a qualified end user. This, he asserted, amounted to deceptive ... more details
orphan date December 2011 Infobox Court Case name Diversified Products Corp. v. Tye Sil Corp. court Federal Court of Appeal Canada Federal Court of Appeal image imagesize imagelink imagealt caption full name date decided February 7, 1991 citations 1991 F.C.J. No. 124, 35 C.P.R. 3d 350 transcripts judges Pratte, Marceau, and D cary JJ.A. prior actions subsequent actions opinions D cary J.A., concurrence by Marceau J.A. keywords Patent, Presumption of Validity, Anticipation, Obviousness Diversified Products Corp. v. Tye Sil Corp. is a Canadian Federal Court of Appeal Canada Federal Court of Appeal decision concerning the presumption of validity in Canadian patent law and novelty. Presumption of validity The Court of Appeal considered the effect of the presumption of validity of a registered patent. Section 45 of the Patent Act provides that a patent granted under the Act is valid in the absence of any evidence to the contrary . The trial judge had adopted a high standard for rebutting the presumption, where the onus to disprove the presumption is not an easy one to discharge . D cary J.A., for the Court, rejected this approach. The Court of Appeal concluded that the presumption of validity merely gives rise to an evidentiary burden on a balance of probabilities. Novelty The Court of Appeal cited with approval jurisprudence that stands for the proposition that an impractical and inoperable device cannot be an anticipation . The invention dealt with a conventional rowing machine usable in an upright position. The Court found that the prior art, which was an exercise machine, was impracticable and inoperable in the vertical position. Consequently, the patent was not anticipated. Non obviousness The Court further determined that the invention was not obvious. See also Presumption of validity in Canadian patent law Novelty and non obviousness in Canadian patent law Category Federal Court of Canada Category Canadian patent case law ... more details
SCOTUSCase Litigants Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Basic Industries Corp. ArgueDate February 23 ArgueYear 2005 DecideDate March 30 DecideYear 2005 FullName Exxon Mobil Corporation, Exxon Chemical Arabia, Inc., and Mobil Yanbu Petrochemical Company, Inc., Petitioners v. Saudi Basic Industries Corporation USVol 544 USPage 280 Citation 125 S. Ct. 1517 161 L. Ed. 2d 454 2005 U.S. LEXIS 2929 73 U.S.L.W. 4266 18 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 206 Prior On writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Basic Indus. Corp., 364 F.3d 102, 2004 U.S. App. LEXIS 5485 3d Cir. N.J., 2004 Subsequent Holding The Rooker Feldman doctrine applies only where a federal court litigant seeks to review or overturn state court judgments in federal district court. Third Circuit decision reversed. SCOTUS 1994 2005 Majority Ginsburg JoinMajority unanimous LawsApplied UnitedStatesCode 28 1257 Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Basic Industries Corp. , 544 U.S. 280 2005 , is a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States clarified the Rooker Feldman doctrine and its relation to preclusion and concurrent jurisdiction . Facts & Procedural Posture In 1980, two subsidiaries of Exxon Mobil Corporation the plaintiff and petitioner in this matter formed a joint venture with defendant respondent Saudi Basic Industries Corporation SABIC . Twenty years later, a dispute arose over royalties SABIC had charged Exxon Mobil s Subsidiary subsidiaries for License sublicenses to a polyethylene manufacturing method, and SABIC sued the two subsidiaries in Delaware Superior Court in July 2000. Instead of first filing a counterclaim in the Delaware state court system, Exxon Mobil and its subsidiaries chose to sue SABIC in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey . There, they alleged that SABIC had overcharged the subsidiaries for the sublicenses. Exxon ... the Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co. Rooker and District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman Feldman ... more details
SCOTUSCase Litigants Dastar Corp. v. Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp. ArgueDate April 2 ArgueYear 2003 DecideDate June 2 DecideYear 2003 FullName Dastar Corporation, Petitioner v. Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation, et al. USVol 539 USPage 23 Citation 123 S. Ct. 2041 156 L. Ed. 2d 18 2003 U.S. LEXIS 4276 71 U.S.L.W. 4415 66 U.S.P.Q.2D BNA 1641 Copy. L. Rep. CCH P28,622 194 A.L.R. Fed. 731 2003 Cal. Daily Op. Service 4554 2003 Daily Journal DAR 5799 16 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 330 Prior Judgment for plaintiffs, 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 22064 C.D. Cal. Nov. 27, 2000 affirmed in part, sub nom. Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp. v. Entertainment Distributing , 34 Federal Appendix Fed. Appx. 312 9th Cir. 2002 cert. granted, sub nom. Dastar Corp. v. Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp. , 537 U.S. 1099 2003 Subsequent Judgment for plaintiffs, 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21194 C.D. Cal. Oct. 14, 2003 affirmed, sub nom. Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp. v. Entertainment Distributing , 429 F.3d 869 9th Cir. 2005 Holding A former copyright holder could not bring a Lanham Act claim for false designation of origin against a subsequent distributor who labelled itself the producer rather than the work s original author, because origin under the Lanham Act refers only to the origin of the physical goods rather than the intangible ideas contained therein. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed and remanded. SCOTUS 1994 2005 Majority Scalia JoinMajority Rehnquist, Stevens, O Connor, Souter, Thomas, Kennedy, Ginsburg NotParticipating Breyer LawsApplied 15 United States Code U.S.C. 1125 a Lanham Act 43 a Dastar Corp. v. Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp. , 539 U.S. 23 2003 , ref ussc 539 23 Full text of the decision courtesy of Findlaw.com ref was a copyright and trademark case of the Supreme Court of the United States involving the applicability of the Lanham Act to a work in the public domain . Background ... Film Corp. v. Entertainment Distributing , 429 F.3d 869, 875 9th Cir. 2005 . ref The only remaining ... more details
Encyclopedia
top
