SCCInfoBox case name Robertsonv. ThomsonCorp. full case name Heather Robertsonv. ThomsonCorp. 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 Robertsonv. ThomsonCorp. , 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 ... In 1995, Heather Robertson , a freelance writer, wrote two articles that were published in the print ... Robertson objected to the presence of her articles in the databases and sued the Globe and Mail for unauthorized reproduction of her work. The case was granted class action status. Robertson also asserted ... of Robertson s articles were part of the Globe s copyright in its newspaper or if the reproduction infringes Robertson s copyright in her work. Lower court ruling At trial and on appeal, the courts found in favour of Robertson. It was noted that for the Globe to seek protection under ... Times Co. v. Tasini Tasini that the databases were not a reproduction of the original collected work ..., the Court ruled that Robertson s rights had been violated by the addition of her works into two of the three databases. Secondary Issues After determining that Robertson could claim copyright infringement ... 3 of the Copyright Act. ref para. 63 ref The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed Robertson s appeal ... granted to the newspaper publisher by the author. See also New York Times Co. v. Tasini a similar ... more details
Infobox Court Case name Robertsonv British Gas Corp court Court of Appeal image British Gas old .png caption date decided full name citations 1983 ICR 351 judges prior actions subsequent actions opinions transcripts keywords Employment contract Robertsonv British Gas Corp 1983 ICR 351 is a UK labour law case concerning the contract of employment . It held that by withdrawing a bonus that was fixed by collective agreement, an employer had broken individual employment contracts. The bonus provisions were apt for incorporation into individual contracts and thus required the employees consent to be withdrawn. Facts A bonus scheme for British Gas employees was fixed by collective agreement . The employer said it was terminating bonuses and withdrawing from the collective agreement. Employees claimed for arrears in the lost bonus entitlements. Judgment Kerr LJ upheld the claim for three reasons. First, the bonus scheme was part of the individual contracts of employment because it was an important part of wages. Second, if the collective agreement was varied it had no effect on individual contracts. This was another way of saying that the terms of the individual contracts are in part to be found in the agreed collective agreements as exist from time to time Third, the approach to treating an employer s statement as merely evidence of the contract s terms, seen in System Floors U.K. Ltd v Daniel ref 1982 ICR 54 ref was approved. See also Clist employment contract UK labour law Employment contract in English law Autoclenz Ltd v Belcher 2011 http www.bailii.org uk cases UKSC 2011 41.html UKSC 41 Notes refs 2 References External links Category United Kingdom labour case law ... 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 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 projectiles that penetrate the outer wall. Defendant AWH Corporation distributed similar modular .... ref Phillips v. AWH Corp. , 415 F.3d 1303, 1309 11 Fed. Cir. 2005 ref Phillips appealed to the Federal ... 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
, 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 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
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
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 F.3d 642 author Circuit Judge Tatel authorlink David S. Tatel publisher United States Court of Appeals ... 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 ... 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 ... 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
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 www.oyez.org cases 2000 2009 2005 2005 04 1704 argument Prior Motion to dismiss granted, 154 Federal ... Article Three of the United States Constitution U.S. Const. art. III DaimlerChrysler Corp. v. Cuno , 547 ... 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. ..., 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
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 ... 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 ... generated two more cases addressing the preemption issue. Perry v. Thomas , in 1987, overturned ... 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
Sharp vThomson 1997 SC HL 66 is a United Kingdom House of Lords decision regarding the status of an unrecorded disposition in Scottish law Scots Property Law . ref name Discussion Paper on Sharp vThomson cite book last Scottish Law Commission title Discussion Paper on Sharp vThomson year 2001 publisher Scottish Law Commission url http www.scotlawcom.gov.uk download file view 148 ref The case was brought by Sharp as receivers for Albyn Construction Ltd, a building company who had sold a house in Aberdeen to the Thomsons, a brother and sister. Albyn had agreed to sell the house to the Thomsons leading to the completion of the missives and the delivery of the disposition and the payment of the purchase price. However, before the disposition was registered by the Thomsons, Albyn defaulted on a loan taken by them from the Bank of Scotland . The default lead to the Crystallization of a floating charge held by the bank over all of Albyn s Property and Undertaking , and Sharp was appointed Receiver to collect this for the Bank. ref name Discussion Paper on Sharp vThomson Sharp raised an action before the Court of Session contesting that, since the disposition hadn t been registered, the ownership of the house remained with Albyn at the time of Crystallization and that it and the purchase price was available to the Bank as holder of the charge. The Thomsons responded that the act of delivering the disposition divulged Albyn of any Beneficial Interest in the house and that this was enough to remove it from the scope of the charge. ref name Discussion Paper on Sharp vThomson The Inner ... reduced by the House of Lords in 2004 in Burnett s Trustee v Grainger 2004 UKHL 8 where the Court held that Sharp vThomson was authority only for holders of floating charges. ref name Scots Law News cite web last MacQueen first Hector title Distinguishing Sharp vThomson url http www.law.ed.ac.uk ... Sjef title Comparative Case Notes Burnett s Trustee v. Grainger as an Example url http www.ejcl.org ... more details
Use mdy dates date September 2010 Infobox SCOTUS case Litigants Adams v. Robertson ArgueDate January 14 ArgueYear 1997 DecideDate March 3 DecideYear 1997 FullName Guy E. Adams, et al., Petitioners v. Charlie Frank Robertson and Liberty National Life Insurance Company USVol 520 USPage 83 Citation 117 S. Ct. 1028 137 L. Ed. 2d 203 1997 U.S. LEXIS 1490 65 U.S.L.W. 4180 97 Cal. Daily Op. Service 1538 97 Daily Journal DAR 2270 10 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 339 Prior On writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Alabama, reported at 1995 Ala. LEXIS 689. Adams v. Robertson, 676 So. 2d 1265, 1995 Ala. LEXIS 689 Ala., 1995 Subsequent Holding SCOTUS 1994 2005 PerCuriam yes LawsApplied Adams v. Robertson , 520 U.S. 83 1997 , was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States . See also List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 520 List of United States Supreme Court cases Lists of United States Supreme Court cases by volume External links http www.oyez.org cases 1990 1999 1996 1996 95 1873 argument Adams v. Robertson Oral Argument DEFAULTSORT Adams V. Robertson Category United States Supreme Court cases Category United States Supreme Court per curiam opinions Category 1997 in United States case law SCOTUS case stub ... more details
Infobox SCOTUS case Litigants Robertsonv. United States ArgueDate March 31 ArgueYear 1952 DecideDate June 2 DecideYear 1952 FullName Robertsonv. United States USVol 343 USPage 711 Citation Prior Subsequent Holding That cash contest prizes are taxable, and attributable to the most recent 36 months ending with the close of the year in which it was received SCOTUS 1949 1953 Majority Douglas JoinMajority Black, Reed, Burton, Clark, Minton Concurrence JoinConcurrence Concurrence2 JoinConcurrence2 Concurrence Dissent JoinConcurrence Dissent Dissent Jackson JoinDissent Dissent2 JoinDissent2 NotParticipating Frankfurter LawsApplied not to be confused with United States v. Robertson , 514 U.S. 669 1995 Robertsonv. United States, ussc 343 711 1952 , ref cite court litigants Robertsonv. United States vol 343 U.S. 711 court date 1952 url http supreme.justia.com us 343 711 case.html ref was an income tax case before the U.S. Supreme Court discussing, under United States tax law, whether prizes are exempt as gifts under 102 a . The facts of the case involve American composer Leroy Robertson entering a previously composed symphony, Trilogy , into a 1947 contest for musical compositions. Robertson won 25,000, claimed the prize on his income taxes as income attributable to the three years he wrote it 1937 through 1939 , and thereafter claimed a refund that treated his winnings as a gift. The case is notable, and thus appears in law school casebooks, for the following holdings A cash prize received by the winner of a contest in musical composition is gross income within the meaning of 22 a of the Internal Revenue Code, and it is not a gift excluded from gross income by 22 b 3 . Pp. 343 U. S. 713 714. In computing under 107 b , the tax on such a cash prize for a musical composition, the income should be attributed to the 36 months ending with the close of the year in which it was received not some earlier period of 36 months during which the taxpayer worked on the composition. Pp. 343 ... more details
Morrison vRobertson Case citation Scotland 1908 SC 332 is a case establishing the common law principles that govern unilateral error in Scots law . ref http auraserv.abdn.ac.uk 9080 aura bitstream 2164 31 1 050421 002.pdf Plausible rogues contract and property , EdinLR Vol 9 2005 pp 150 156 ref Facts A man claiming to be the son of Wilson of Bonnyrigg approached Morrisson and offered to buy two cow s from him. Although Morrison did not know the man, he knew of Wilson, who was a neighbouring farmer of good financial standing. Accordingly, he let the man have the two cows on Credit finance credit . In fact, the man was not the son of Wilson but a Rogue vagrant rogue called Telford. Telford sold the two cows to Robertson. When Morrison found this out he sought to recover the cows from Robertson. Judgment The action was successful. It was held that there had been no contract between Morrison and Telford. The purported transaction was a complete null and void nullity . Accordingly, Telford had no rights which he could pass on to Robertson, so Morrison was entitled to recover his cows. ref http www.sml.hw.ac.uk buslm1 ComLaw1 cl1contractcases.html LAW OF CONTRACT NOTES OF CASES ref See also Cundy v Lindsay 1878 3 App Cas 459, a similar case in English law Shogun Finance Ltd v Hudson , a 2003 case Notes Reflist References Contract , Third Edition, Greens Concise Scots Law, Stephen Woolman & Jonathan Lake. Category Scottish case law Category 1908 in case law Category 1908 in Scotland Category Legal articles without infoboxes ... more details
italic title Kaye vRobertson 1991 FSR 62 is a case in English law which is a notable case, expressing the view that there is no common law right to privacy in English law. Facts The case involved Gorden Kaye , a well known actor who suffered life threatening injuries in a car accident. Kaye attempted to obtain an order to restrain publication of photographs of the injuries he suffered in the crash. These photographs were obtained by deception when a tabloid journalist entered the hospital while he was undergoing treatment. Judgment A friend of Mr Kaye had been granted an interlocutory injunction preventing the editor Anthony Robertson and the newspaper the Sunday Sport from using the material, which they appealed. Iain Glidewell Lord Justice Glidewell said It is well known that in English law there is no right to privacy, and accordingly there is no right of action for breach of a persons privacy. The facts of the present case are a graphic illustration of the desirability of Parliament considering whether and in what circumstances statutory provision can be made to protect the privacy of individuals. In the absence of the right to privacy, Mr Kaye s advisers based their claim on libel , malicious falsehood , trespass trespass to the person and passing off . The Court of Appeal of England and Wales Court of Appeal ruled that none of these torts was applicable except malicious falsehood, and on this basis the only remedy available was that the newspaper was prohibited from stating any inference that Mr Kaye had consented to the story. Significance The academic response to this ruling has been negative, e.g. Kaye remains a compelling demonstration of the limits of both existing English law and of the limitations of an approach that relies upon inadequate existing remedies to protect privacy. ref cite web url http www.ucl.ac.uk laws global law publications institute docs ... Privacy in English law Wainwright v Home Office Notes reflist External links http www.law.ed.ac.uk ... 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
Encyclopedia
top
