StrattonOakmontStrattonOakmont, Inc . v. Prodigy ISP ProdigyServicesCo . , Case citation 1995 WL .... ref name StrattonStrattonOakmont, Inc. v. ProdigyServicesCo. , http w2.eff.org legal cases StrattonOakmont Porush vProdigystrattonoakmont porush vprodigy et al.decision No. 31063 94, 1995 ... Oakmont, Inc. V. ProdigyServicesCo. Category New York state case law Category United States Internet ... Project, http www.citmedialaw.org threats strattonoakmontvprodigyStrattonOakmont, Inc. v. ProdigyServicesCo. Retrieved March 26, 2009 . ref Court ruling The plaintiffs argued that Prodigy ISP Prodigy should be considered a publisher of the defamatory material and were therefore liable for the postings under the common law of United States defamation law defamation . Prodigy asked to be dismissed ... 1994, an unidentified user of Prodigy ISP Prodigy s Money Talk bulletin board created a post which claimed that StrattonOakmontStrattonOakmont, Inc , a Long Island securities investment banking ... public offering of stock of Solomon Page, Ltd. StrattonOakmont sued Prodigy and the unidentified ... by its users, relying on a 1991 case Cubby, Inc. v. CompuServe Inc. , which had found compuserve ... name Cubby Cubby, Inc. v. CompuServe Inc. , http epic.org free speech cubby v compuserve.html 776 F. Supp. 135 S.D.N.Y. 1991 . ref The Stratton court held that Prodigy was liable as the publisher of the content ... federal district court decision in Cubby, Inc. v. CompuServe Inc. , which had suggested that the courts ... The important difference between CompuServe and Prodigy for the Stratton court was that Prodigy ... history specifically says the law was intended to overrule StrattonOakmont and any other similar ... because they have restricted access to objectionable material. Related cases Cubby, Inc. v. CompuServe Inc. Zeran v. America Online, Inc. References references External links http www.eff.org ... Prodigy liable, in the face of the CompuServe case, was that Prodigy s conscious choice, to gain ... more details
Infobox New York COA case Litigants Lunney v. ProdigyServicesCo. ArgueDate ArgueYear DecideDate December 2 DecideYear 1999 FullName Alexander G. Lunney v. ProdigyServices Company, et al. Citations 723 N.E.2d 539 94 N.Y.2d 242 701 N.Y.S.2d 684 Prior Defendant s motion for summary judgment denied, New York Supreme Court Sup. Ct. Westchester County, New York Westchester Cty. , July 2, 1997 renewed motion for summary judgment denied, Sup. Ct., Jan. 14, 1998 rev d, 250 New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division A.D.2d 230 1999 Subsequent certiorari Cert. denied, 529 United States Reports U.S. 1098 2000 Holding An internet chatroom provider could not be considered the publisher of defamatory material posted by an imposter account because of its passive role in monitoring the chatrooms. Appellate Division affirmed. ChiefJudge Judith S. Kaye AssociateJudges Joseph W. Bellacosa , George Bundy Smith , Howard A. Levine , Carmen Beauchamp Ciparick , Richard C. Wesley , Albert M. Rosenblatt Majority Rosenblatt JoinMajority Kaye, Smith, Levine, Ciparick, Wesley NotParticipating Bellacosa LawsApplied Lunney v. ProdigyServicesCo. , 94 N.Y.2d 242 1999 is a leading law of the United States U.S. law case on liability of Online service provider law internet service providers for defamation . The court held that Prodigy online service Prodigy , an internet chatroom provider, was not considered a publisher of defamatory material posted from an imposter account due to its passive role in monitoring the chatrooms. External links http caselaw.lp.findlaw.com scripts getcase.pl?court ny&vol i99&invol 0165 Decision text at FindLaw http www.nationallawcenter.org docs doc download 28.html Petition for certiorari Category New York state case law Category United States Internet case law Category United States defamation case law Category 1999 in United States case law Category 1999 in New York US case law stub ... more details
Refimprove date January 2011 StrattonOakmont was a Long Island , New York , pump and dump boiler room brokerage house founded by Jordan Belfort , Danny Porush, COO Steven Carter and CFO Kenny Greene that was shut down in the late 1990s. Jordan Belfort wrote a book about it entitled The Wolf of Wall Street . Belfort was convicted of securities fraud in 1999 and served 22 months of a 4 year sentence. Alabama Securities Commissioner Joseph Borg regulator Joseph Borg pushed the formation of a multi state task force which eventually led to the prosecution of StrattonOakmont after his office was inundated with complaints regarding the brokerage. ref name al cite news last Hubbard first Russell title Joe Borg, Alabama Securities Commission boss, has reputation of being tough on crooks url http blog.al.com businessnews 2010 03 joe borg alabama securities co.html accessdate 25 January 2011 newspaper The Birmingham News date 21 March 2010 ref Certain websites, such as IMDb , state that there is currently a movie due to start production at some point in 2010. Leonardo Dicaprio has been flagged to star as Jordan Belfort and Martin Scorsese is slated to direct. ref name al cite news last Nashawaty first Chris title Leonardo DiCaprio and Martin Scorsese teaming up again for The Wolf of Wall Street url http insidemovies.ew.com 2011 02 17 leonardo dicaprio martin scorsese wolf of wall street accessdate 17 January 2011 newspaper Entertainment Weekly date 17 February 2011 ref See also StrattonOakmont, Inc. v. ProdigyServicesCo. StrattonOakmont, Inc. v. ProdigyServicesCo. , 1995 WL 323710 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1995 References reflist Category Finance fraud Finance company stub ... more details
Eastman Kodak Co. v. Image Technical Services, Inc. , 504 U.S. 451 1992 , was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States that held that a lack of market power in the primary equipment market does not necessarily preclude antitrust based on market power in derivative aftermarkets. ref Grady, Mark F. Cases and Materials on Antitrust . UCLA Academic Publishing, 2011, p. 593. ref Factual background Eastman Kodak manufactured and sold copying and micrographic equipment. In the early 1980s Independent Service Organizations ISOs began servicing Kodak equipment. Later, Kodak sought to take over servicing its own machines and limited the availability of Kodak replacement parts to the ISOs. The ISOs sued Kodak under sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Antitrust Act for refusing to sell Kodak replacement parts to them. The district court granted Kodak s motion for summary judgment . The ISOs appealed, and the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed the grant of summary judgment for Kodak. Kodak appealed to the Supreme Court. ref Grady, pp. 591 92 ref Decision Majority opinion The Supreme Court affirmed the Ninth Circuit s denial of Kodak s summary judgment motion. The Court held that this situation was not like Mastushita , where a predatory scheme was so unlikely to succeed as to preclude antitrust liability. The Court recognized that there information costs and lock in that prevented switching copying and micrograhpic equipment, and that the ISOs should be allowed to present their case to the jury. ref Grady, pp. 593 606 ref Scalia s dissent Justice Scalia dissented, arguing that Kodak s summary judgment motion should be granted because Kodak lacked power in the interbrand copier and micrographic equipment market. ref Grady, pp. 609 615 ref See also List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 504 References reflist Category United States antitrust case law Category United States Supreme Court cases Category 1992 in United States case law Category Kodak ... more details
SCOTUSCase Litigants Qualitex Co. v. Jacobson Products Co., Inc. ArgueDate January 9 ArgueYear 1995 DecideDate March 28 DecideYear 1995 FullName Qualitex Co. v. Jacobson Products Co., Inc. USVol 514 USPage 159 Citation 115 S. Ct. 1300 131 L. Ed. 2d 248 1995 U.S. LEXIS 2408 63 U.S.L.W. 4227 34 U.S.P.Q.2D BNA 1161 95 Cal. Daily Op. Service 2249 95 Daily Journal DAR 3867 8 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 653 Prior C.D. Cal. found for plaintiff, 1991 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21172 judgment set aside by the Ninth Circuit, 13 F.3d 1297 1994 , reversed Subsequent Holding Under the Lanham Act, a color can be registered as a trademark. Individual colors, however, cannot be deemed inherently distinctive, so the registrant must demonstrate that the color has acquired secondary meaning in consumers minds as indicating the source of the registrant s goods. SCOTUS 1994 2005 Majority Breyer JoinMajority unanimous LawsApplied Lanham Act Qualitex Co. v. Jacobson Products Co., Inc. , Case citation 514 U.S. 159 1995 ref citation was a case in which the United States Supreme Court held that a color could meet the legal requirements for trademark registration under the Lanham Act , provided that it has acquired secondary meaning in the market. Facts and Procedural History Plaintiff Qualitex Co. had used a green Gold color gold color for the pads which it sold to dry cleaning firms to use in their dry cleaning presses. Defendant Jacobson Products Co. was a rival of Qualitex. In 1989, Jacobson began selling their own pads to dry cleaners which were a similar color to those of Qualitex. In response, Qualitex filed a lawsuit against Jacobson in the United States District Court for the Central District of California for unfair competition . In 1991, Qualitex registered the green gold color of its pads with the United States Patent and Trademark Office as a trademark, and subsequently added a trademark infringement count to its lawsuit. The District Court found for Qualitex, but the United States Court of Appeals ... more details
SCOTUSCase Litigants Friends of the Earth, Inc., et al. v. Laidlaw Environmental Services, Inc. ArgueDate October 12 ArgueYear 1999 DecideDate January 12 DecideYear 2000 FullName Friends of the Earth, Incorporated, et al. v. Laidlaw Environmental Services TOC , Incorporated USVol 528 USPage 167 Citation 120 S. Ct. 693 145 L. Ed. 2d 610 2000 U.S. LEXIS 501 49 ERC BNA 1769 163 A.L.R. Fed. 749 2000 Cal. Daily Op. Service 289 2000 Daily Journal DAR 375 30 ELR 20246 1999 Colo. J. C.A.R. 142 13 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 37 Prior On writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Subsequent Holding The Court held that plaintiff residents in the area of South Carolina South Carolina s Tyger River North Tyger River had standing to sue an industrial polluter against whom various deterrent Civil penalty civil penalties were being pursued. SCOTUS 1994 2005 Majority Ginsburg JoinMajority Rehnquist, Stevens, O Connor, Kennedy, Souter, Breyer Concurrence Stevens Concurrence2 Kennedy Dissent Scalia JoinDissent Thomas LawsApplied United States Constitution U.S. Const. Friends of the Earth , Inc. et al. v. Laidlaw Environmental Services, Inc. , Case citation 528 U.S. 167 2000 ref citation , was a Supreme Court of the United States United States Supreme Court case that addressed the law regarding standing law standing to sue and mootness . The Court held that the plaintiff residents in the area of South Carolina South Carolina s Tyger River North Tyger River had standing to sue an industrial polluter, against whom various deterrent Civil penalty civil penalties were being pursued. Standing was properly based on the fact that the residents alleged that they would have ... DEFAULTSORT Friends Of The Earth, Inc. V. Laidlaw Environmental Services, Inc. Category United States ... by volume External links caselaw source case Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Environmental Services, Inc. , 528 U.S. 167 2000 findlaw http caselaw.lp.findlaw.com scripts getcase.pl?navby CASE&court ... more details
SCOTUSCase Litigants Eli Lilly & Co. v. Medtronic, Inc. ArgueDate February 26 ArgueYear 1990 DecideDate June 18 DecideYear 1990 FullName Eli Lilly & Co. v. Medtronic, Inc. USVol 496 USPage 661 Docket 89 243 Citation 110 S. Ct. 2683 110 L. Ed. 2d 605 1990 U.S. LEXIS 3184 58 U.S.L.W. 4838 15 U.S.P.Q.2D BNA 1121 Prior Certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeal for the Federal Circuit. Subsequent Rehearing Denied, August 14, 1990, Reported at 1990 U.S. LEXIS 3730. Holding Section 271 e 1 exempts from infringement the use of patented inventions reasonably related to the development and submission of information needed to obtain marketing approval of medical devices under the FDCA. SCOTUS 1988 1990 Majority Scalia JoinMajority Rehnquist, Brennan, Marshall, Blackmun, Stevens Concurrence JoinConcurrence Concurrence2 JoinConcurrence2 Concurrence Dissent JoinConcurrence Dissent Dissent Kennedy JoinDissent White Dissent2 JoinDissent2 NotParticipating O Connor LawsApplied Eli Lilly and Company v. Medtronic , Inc. , ussc 496 661 1990 , is a United States Supreme Court case related to Patent infringement in the Medical device industry. It held that UnitedStatesCode 35 271 e 1 of United States patent law exempted premarketing activity conducted to gain approval of a device under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act from a finding of infringement. See also List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 496 List of United States Supreme Court cases Lists of United States Supreme Court cases by volume List of United States Supreme Court cases by the Rehnquist Court References ussc 496 661 1990 Full text opinion from Findlaw.com http neuro.law.cornell.edu supct html 89 243.ZO.html Opinion from Cornell LII Category Biotechnology law Category Eli Lilly and Company Category United States Supreme Court cases Category United States patent case law Category 1990 in United States case law Category Medtronic biotech stub SCOTUS stub ... more details
Infobox SCOTUS case Litigants Gross v. FBL Financial Services ArgueDate March 31 ArgueYear 2009 DecideDate June 18 DecideYear 2009 FullName Gross v. FBL Financial Services, Inc. USVol 557 USPage Citation Prior Subsequent Holding A plaintiff must prove, by preponderance of evidence, that age was the proximate cause for adverse employment action. SCOTUS 2006 2009 Majority Thomas JoinMajority Roberts, Scalia, Kennedy, Alito Concurrence JoinConcurrence Concurrence2 Concurrence Dissent JoinConcurrence Dissent Dissent Stevens JoinDissent Souter, Ginsburg, Breyer Dissent2 Breyer JoinDissent2 Souter, Ginsburg LawsApplied Age Discrimination in Employment Act ADEA , 42 U.S.C. 2000e 2 Gross v. FBL Financial Group FBL Financial Services, Inc. was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States in 2009, involving the Age Discrimination in Employment Act ADEA . After being transferred to another position, a subordinate of Jack Gross took on many of his old responsibilities. Although Gross and his former subordinate received the same compensation, Gross felt the reassignment was a demotion. Gross brought suit in April 2004 in District Court, claiming ADEA violations. The court found in his favor, awarding him 46,945 in lost compensation. The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reversed the decision and the Supreme Court, finding that a plaintiff must prove, by preponderance of evidence, that age was the proximate cause for adverse employment action, affirmed the reversal. See also List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 557 List of United States Supreme Court cases References Text of the decision http www.law.cornell.edu supct html 08 441.ZO.html http www.newsweek.com id 235069 Keep Young and Beautiful Especially At Work How a Supreme Court decision is making age discrimination harder than ever to prove. Reflist Category United States Supreme Court cases Category United States employment discrimination case law Category 2009 in United States case ... more details
Infobox Court Case name Villalba v Merrill Lynch & CoInc court Employment Appeal Tribunal image Paternoster Square.jpg date decided 31 March 2006 full name citations 2007 ICR 469, 2006 UKEAT 0223 05 3103, 2006 IRLR 437 judges prior actions subsequent actions opinions transcripts http www.bailii.org uk cases UKEAT 2006 0223 05 3103.html Full transcript from Balii keywords Villalba v Merrill Lynch & CoInc 2007 http www.bailii.org uk cases UKEAT 2006 0223 05 3103.html ICR 469 is a UK labour law case, concerning sex discrimination and equal pay . It was the largest claim to be lodged in the United Kingdom, but was rejected in the Employment Tribunal and on appeal. Facts Stephanie Villalba was the daughter of a former head of Merrill Lynch s France operations, and had many family members working with the company. She too joined as a graduate and by 2002 had become the Market Executive for Europe . She reported to a Mr Raymundo Yu, who quickly formed the view that Ms Villalba was not flexible in taking criticism or advice on board. Late 2002 was a bad time in the markets, and Mr Yu appointed a Mr Ausuf Abbas, who took over some of Ms Villalba s functions. From then, followed some incidents, which the Tribunal found amounted to less than Ms Villalba had alleged. One was an email where Mr Abbas said Ms Villalba was high maintenance . This was found simply to mean requiring considerable management time and effort . A second was that on a jet airplane jet flight between Frankfurt and Milan , Villalba got the last seat, near the drinks cabinet, and was expected to pour drinks for the fellow travellers. She alleged she was being made to feel like a flight attendant, but it was found that anybody who had sat there would have had to do the same. Feeling isolated, Ms Villalba confided in the Human Resources head Ms Pauline Cahill and made according to the tribunal a tentative allegation of sex discrimination , that she was not being treated as an equal team member. Ms Cahill who ... more details
Infobox SCOTUS case Litigants Pacific Bell Telephone Co. v. linkLine Communications, Inc. ArgueDate December 8 ArgueYear 2008 DecideDate February 25 DecideYear 2009 FullName Pacific Bell Telephone Co., dba AT&T California, et al. v. linkLine Communications, Inc., et al. CitationNew 555U.S. 2009 Docket 07 512 Holding SCOTUS 2006 2009 Majority Roberts JoinMajority Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas, and Alito Concurrence Breyer JoinConcurrence Stevens, Souter, and Ginsburg LawsApplied Pacific Bell Telephone Co. v. linkLine Communications, Inc. , Docket No. 07 512 was a case decided by the United States Supreme Court in 2009. The court decided unanimously that Pacific Bell d b a AT&T did not violate the Sherman Antitrust Act when it charged other Internet providers a high fee to buy space on its phone lines to deliver an Internet connection. The court ruled that where there is no duty to deal at the wholesale level and no predatory pricing at the retail level, a firm is not required to price both of these services in a manner that preserves its rivals profit margins. See also List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 555 List of United States Supreme Court cases External links SCOTUS URL Slip 08 07 512 Text of the decision Category United States Supreme Court cases Category United States Supreme Court case articles without infoboxes Category 2009 in United States case law SCOTUS case stub ... more details
Infobox Court Case name Perpetual Real Estate Services, Inc. v. Michaelson Properties, Inc. court image date decided full name citations 974 F.2d 545 4th Cir. 1992 judges prior actions subsequent actions opinions Wilkinson J transcripts keywords Legal person , limited liability Perpetual Real Estate Services, Inc. v. Michaelson Properties, Inc. 974 F.2d 545 4th Cir. 1992 is a US corporate law case, concerning piercing the corporate veil . Facts Aaron Michaelson formed Michaelson Properties, Inc in 1981. Aaron was the sole shareholder and the corporation s president. It was a business for real estate joint ventures. It entered a joint venture with Perpetual Real Estates forming a partnership called Arlington Apartment Associates to build condominiums. As they were building, further finance was needed. Michaelson Properties Inc could not put up its share, so Perpetual loaned it 1.05m, and got a personal guarantee from Aaron. The apartments did not turn out to be built that well. Purchasers sued the partnership successfully for 950,000. Perpetual Real Estates paid it off on the partnership s behalf. Then they sought Michaelson Properties Inc to contribute its share. It did not have the money, and went bust. So they sued Aaron to pay. He argued that Michaelson Properties, Inc was a separate ..., because the transactions recognised it existed. See also Cited cases Cheatle v. Rudd s Swimming Pool Supply Co. , 234 Ca. 207, 360 S.E.2d 828 1987 Beale v. Kappa Alpha Order , 192 Ca. 382, 64 S.E2d 789 1951 Anderson v. Abbott , 321 U.S. 349 1944 Dwitt Truck Brokers, Inc. v. W. Ray Flemming Fruit Co. , 540 F.2d 681 4th Cir. 1976 Cunningham v. Rendezvous, Inc. 699 F.2d 676 4th Cir. 1983 United States v. Jon T Chemicals, Inc. 768 F.2d 686 5th Cir. 1985 United Paperworkers Int l Union v. Penntech Papers, Inc. , 439 F. Supp. 610 D. Me. 1977 Aronson v. Price 644, N.E.2d 864 Ind. 1964 a plaintiff .... Interocean Shipping Co. v. National Shipping & Trading Corp. , 523 F.2d 527 2d Cir. 1975 , conduct ... more details
SCOTUSCase Litigants Talk America, Inc. v. Michigan Bell Telephone Co. ArgueDate ArgueYear DecideDate DecideYear 2011 FullName Talk America, Inc. v. Michigan Bell Telephone Co. DBA AT&T Michigan Docket 10 313 Docket2 OralArgument http www.oyez.org cases 2010 2019 2010 2010 10 313 argument USVol USPage Citation Prior Michigan Public Service Commission decision reversed sub nom. Mich. Bell Tel. Co. v. Lark , 2007 WL 2868633 E.D. Mich. 2007 affirmed sub nom. Michigan Bell Telephone Co. v. Covad Communications Co. , 597 F.3d 370 6th Cir. 2010 certiorari granted, 562 U. S. 2010 Subsequent Holding The Federal Communications Commission had advanced a reasonable interpretation of its regulations in a dispute with AT&T. SCOTUS 2010 2012 Majority Thomas JoinMajority Roberts, Scalia, Kennedy, Ginsburg, Breyer, Alito, and Sotomayor Concurrence Scalia JoinConcurrence Concurrence2 JoinConcurrence2 Concurrence Dissent JoinConcurrence Dissent Dissent JoinDissent Dissent2 JoinDissent2 NotParticipating Kagan LawsApplied Talk America, Inc. v. Michigan Bell Telephone Co. , Case citation No. 10 313 2011 , was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that the Federal Communications Commission FCC had advanced a reasonable interpretation of its regulations in a dispute with AT&T. ref http www.supremecourt.gov opinions 10pdf 10 313.pdf Talk America, Inc. v. Michigan Bell Telephone Co. Syllabus p. 2 Held The FCC has advanced a reasonable interpretation of its regulations i.e., that to satisfy its duty under 251 c 2 , an incumbent LEC must make its existing entrance facilities available to competitors at cost based rates if the facilities are to be used for interconnection and this Court defers to the FCC s views. ref See also List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 564 References Reflist External links http scholar.google.com scholar case?case 6091701917629611674&hl en&as sdt 2&as vis 1&oi scholarr Text of opinion from Google Scholar Category 2011 in United States ... more details
Infobox United States District Court Case name Zippo Manufacturing Co. v. Zippo Dot Com, Inc. court United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania image imagesize caption full name date decided Jan. 16, 1997 citations 952 F. Supp. 1119 transcripts judge Sean J. McLaughlin prior actions subsequent actions holding The Court denied Zippo Dot Com s motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction finding that its contacts with Pennsylvania residents and ISPs constituted purposeful availment of the privilege of conducting activities within the forum State. keywords Personal jurisdiction in Internet cases in the United States Personal Jurisdiction Zippo Manufacturing Co. v. Zippo Dot Com, Inc. , 952 F. Supp. 1119 W.D. Pa. 1997 , was a decision by the United States District Court .... ref name case Zippo Manufacturing Co. v. Zippo Dot Com, Inc. , 952 F.Supp. 1119, 1121 W.D. ... Co. v. Zippo Dot Com, Inc. Category United States trademark case law ... , and PACER Service Center, Case Summary for Zippo Manufacturing v. Zippo Dot Com, Inc ... adopted the Zippo test, including the Third ref Toys R Us, Inc. v. Step Two, S.A , http ftp.resource.org ... Scan, Inc. v. Digital Serv. Consultants, Inc. , http ftp.resource.org courts.gov c F3 293 293.F3d.707.01 1812.html 293 F.3d 707 4th Cir. 2002 . ref , Fifth ref Mink v. AAAA Dev. LLC , http bulk.resource.org ... Cybersell, Inc. v. Cybersell, Inc. , http ftp.resource.org courts.gov c F3 130 130.F3d.414.96 17087.html 130 F.3d 414 9th Cir. 1997 . ref and Tenth Circuits ref Soma Med. Int l v. Std. Chtd. Bank , http ... sufficient to justify purposeful availment. ref Hy Cite Corp. v. Badbusinessbureau.com , 297 F. Supp. 2d 1154, 1160 W.D. Wis. 2004 Howard v. Mo. Bone & Joint Ctr., Inc. , 373 Ill. App ... providing ISP Internet services . The case is a landmark opinion regarding Personal jurisdiction ... its services to residents of Pennsylvania. ref name case 1126 Therefore, the Court denied Dot Com ... more details
SCOTUSCase Litigants Erica P. John Fund, Inc. v. Halliburton Co. ArgueDate April 25 ArgueYear 2011 DecideDate June 6 DecideYear 2011 FullName Erica P. John Fund, Inc. v. Halliburton Co. Docket 09 1403 Docket2 USVol USPage Citation Prior Subsequent Holding Securities fraud plaintiffs need not prove loss causation in order to obtain class certification. OralArgument http www.oyez.org cases 2010 2019 2010 2010 09 1403 argument OpinionAnnouncement http www.oyez.org cases 2010 2019 2010 2010 09 1403 opinion SCOTUS 2010 2012 Majority Roberts JoinMajority Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas, Ginsburg, Breyer, Alito, Sotomayor, Kagen Concurrence JoinConcurrence Concurrence2 JoinConcurrence2 Concurrence Dissent JoinConcurrence Dissent Dissent JoinDissent Dissent2 JoinDissent2 LawsApplied Erica P. John Fund, Inc. v. Halliburton Halliburton Co. , Case citation No. 09 1403 2011 , was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that securities fraud plaintiffs need not prove loss causation in order to obtain class certification. ref sy p. 1 ref Notes reflist References refbegin span id sy class citation cite journal author Supreme Court of the United States year 2011 month June url http www.law.cornell.edu supct pdf 09 1403P.ZS title Erica P. John Fund, Inc. v. Halliburton Co. Syllabus span span id op class citation cite journal author Supreme Court of the United States year 2011 month June url http www.law.cornell.edu supct pdf 09 1403P.ZO title Erica P. John Fund, Inc. v. Halliburton Co. Opinion span refend Category 2011 in law Category United States Supreme Court cases Category Halliburton SCOTUS case stub ... more details
Italic title Powerex Corp. v. Reliant Energy ServicesInc. , 551 U.S. 224 2007 , was a case of the Supreme Court of the United States about federal court jurisdiction and foreign sovereigns. External links http www.law.cornell.edu supct html 05 85.ZS.html Text of the decision Category 2007 in law US case law stub ... more details
Infobox SCOTUS case Litigants Anderson s Black Rock, Inc. v. Pavement Salvage Co. ArgueDate November 10 ArgueYear 1969 DecideDate December 8 DecideYear 1969 FullName Anderson s Black Rock, Inc. v. Pavement Salvage Co., Inc. USVol 396 USPage 57 Citation 90 S. Ct. 305 24 L. Ed. 2d 258 1969 U.S. LEXIS 3322 163 U.S.P.Q. BNA 673 Prior Certiorari Cert. to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Subsequent Holding When old elements are combined in a way such that they do not interact in a novel, unobvious way, then the resulting combination is obvious and therefore unpatentable . SCOTUS Majority Douglas JoinMajority Black, Harlan, Brennan, Stewart, White, Marshall NotParticipating Burger LawsApplied wikisource Anderson s Black Rock, Inc. v. Pavement Salvage Company Anderson s Black Rock, Inc. v. Pavement Salvage Co. , scite 396 57 1969 , is a 1969 decision of the Supreme Court of the United States United States Supreme Court on the legal standard governing the inventive step and non obviousness obviousness of claim patent claim ed inventions. It stands for the proposition that, when old elements are combined in a way such that they do not interact in a novel, unobvious way, then the resulting combination is obvious and therefore unpatentable . Image BlackRoc.jpg 400px thumb right Drawing of the machine patented in this case The patent U.S. Pat. No. 3,055,280 sought to solve a problem in paving asphalt roads the joint between the new section and old, cold sections tends to bond poorly. Previously, one machine spread and shaped the new deposit of asphalt and a second machine contained a radiant heat burner, which softened cold asphalt. The claimed invention combined on one machine chassis the spreading and shaping equipment along with a radiant heat burner. The combination ... Supreme Court decision in KSR Int l Co. v. Teleflex Inc. KSR v. Teflex , ref 550 U.S. 398 2007 . ref ... decision. ref See Dystar Textilfarben GmbH v. C.H. Patrick Co., 464 F.3d 1356, 1369 Fed. Cir. 2006 ... more details
Infobox Court Case name SoftMan Products Co. v. Adobe Systems court United States District Court for the Central District of California image CD CA seal.jpg imagesize 95 date decided October 19, 2001 full name SoftMan Products Company, LLC v. Adobe Systems Inc., et al. citations 171 F. Supp.2d 1075 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17723 45 U.C.C. Rep. Serv. 2d Callaghan 945 judges Dean D. Pregerson prior actions Preliminary injunction entered for plaintiff, 9 10 01 subsequent actions none opinions Plaintiff software company s product was sold rather than licensed to the defendant, who was therefore entitled to resell it in separate components. The defendant was not bound by the software shrinkwrap license or End User License Agreement because the terms of that license were never assented to. Preliminary injunction previously entered for the plaintiff was vacated, and a new injunction denied. SoftMan Products Co. v. Adobe Systems Inc. was a lawsuit heard in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California in 2001 by Judge Dean D. Pregerson . Adobe Systems contended in a counterclaim that the original plaintiff, SoftMan, distributed unauthorized Adobe software, specifically Adobe Educational software and sold individual units the software titles that were purchased from Adobe as a single boxed Collection . Adobe claimed that these actions are infringing Adobe s copyright and violate Adobe s terms of service. Adobe also alleged SoftMan of trademark violation by distributing incomplete versions of their software. Judge Pregerson ruled that Adobe has sold its software instead ... sale doctrine Copyright infringement of software Step Saver Data Systems, Inc. v. Wyse Technology External ..., because unbundled software does not give the customers access to Adobe s support services. Based ... briefs&file softman v adobe or http www.linuxjournal.com files linuxjournal.com linuxjournal articles 056 5628 softman v adobe.html Category United States copyright case law Category Lawsuits Category ... more details
Infobox SCOTUS case Litigants Kiefer Stewart Co. v. Seagram & Sons, Inc. ArgueDate December 8 ArgueYear 1950 DecideDate January 2 DecideYear 1951 FullName Kiefer Stewart Company v. Joseph E. Seagram & Sons, Inc., et al. USVol 340 USPage 211 Citation 71 S.Ct. 259 95 L.Ed. 219 Prior Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit Subsequent Holding An agreement among competitors in interstate commerce to fix maximum resale prices of their products violates the Sherman Act. SCOTUS 1949 1953 Majority Black JoinMajority unanimous court LawsApplied Sherman Antitrust Act , usc 15 1 wikisource Kiefer Stewart Company v. Seagram & Sons, Inc. Kiefer Stewart Co. v. Seagram & Sons, Inc. , Case citation 340 U.S. 211 1951 , was a decision by the United States Supreme Court , which held that an agreement among competitors in interstate commerce to Price fixing fix maximum resale prices of their products violates the Sherman Antitrust Act . Background The petitioner, Kiefer Stewart Company, was an Indiana drug concern which does a wholesale liquor business. Respondents, Seagram and Calvert corporations, are affiliated companies that sell liquor in interstate commerce to Indiana wholesalers. Kiefer Stewart brought this action in a federal district court for treble damages under the Sherman Act, UnitedStatesCode 15 1 and UnitedStatesCodeSec 15 15 . The complaint charged that respondents had agreed or conspired to sell liquor only to those Indiana wholesalers who would resell at prices fixed by Seagram and Calvert, and that this agreement deprived Kiefer Stewart of a continuing ... source case Kiefer Stewart Co. v. Seagram & Sons, Inc. findlaw http caselaw.lp.findlaw.com scripts ... Court reaffirmed United States v. Socony Vacuum Oil Co. 1940 Cquote Under the Sherman Act, a combination ... of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 340 United States v. Socony Vacuum Oil Co. 1940 Albrecht v. Herald Co. 1968 References Reflist Further reading cite journal last Peppin first John C. authorlink ... more details
Orphan date February 2009 Italic title force true Elektra Records Co. v. Gem Electronic Distributors, Inc. ref Elektra Records Co. v. Gem Electronic Distributors, Inc. , 360 F. Supp. 821 E.D.N.Y. 1973 . ref was an important Case law case before the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York that concerned copyright infringement , which held that secondary persons or entities could be liable for that tort under certain circumstances, and is also called the make a tape case . ref name Ginsburg Jane Ginsburg, Secondary Liability for Copyright Infringement in the U.S. Anticipating the Apr s Grokster , found at http www.law.columbia.edu law school communications reports winter06 facforum1 Secondary Liability for Copyright Infringement in the US, from Columbia Law School website . Retrieved December 13, 2008. ref The facts were that quote a record shop rented sound recordings to customers who would also purchase blank tape and then use a recording machine on the store premises to copy the rented recording onto the blank tape. The store owner s knowledge of the likely use of the blank tape was patent. Jane Ginsburg, Professor, Columbia Law School ref name Ginsburg Federal courts have held that secondary tort legal liability liability exists when quote enabling or inciting another to infringe, at least when the enabler knows that her conduct will result in infringement. Decisions dating back several decades recognize that one who supplies the means to infringe, and knows of the use to which the means will be put or turns a blind eye , can be held liable for contributory infringement. In the early cases, however, the relationship between the supplier and the user ... Records Co. v. Gem Electronic Distributors, Inc., 360 F. Supp. 821 Dist. Court, ED New York 1973 case ... of the United States US Supreme Court cases of Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City Studios, Inc. , 125 S. Ct. 2764 1984 and MGM Studios, Inc. v. Grokster, Ltd. , 464 U.S. 417 2005 . ref name Ginsburg ... more details
Infobox SCOTUS case Litigants F. W. Woolworth Company F. W. Woolworth Co . v. Contemporary Arts, Inc ArgueDate November 17 ArgueYear 1952 DecideDate December 22 DecideYear 1952 FullName F. W. Woolworth Co. v. Contemporary Arts, Inc USVol 344 USPage 228 Citation Prior Subsequent Holding Trial judges enjoy wide latitude with imposing possible Legal remedy remedies to discourage copyright violations. They may penalize infringers with repaying Profit accounting profits , compensation for damages or Statutory damages for copyright infringement statutory damages as appropriate to the situation. SCOTUS 1949 1953 Majority Jackson JoinMajority Concurrence JoinConcurrence Concurrence2 JoinConcurrence2 Concurrence Dissent JoinConcurrence Dissent Dissent Black JoinDissent Frankfurter Dissent2 JoinDissent2 LawsApplied Copyright Act of 1909 F. W. Woolworth Co. v. Contemporary Arts, Inc. nicknamed The Cocker Spaniel Case , ussc 344 228 1952 , is a United States Supreme Court case regarding copyright infringement. The Copyright Act of 1909 allows recovery of either the Profit accounting profits of the infringing company or of the damages suffered by the copyright holder as the Legal remedy legal remedies . When the actual damages cannot be determined, Statutory damages for copyright infringement statutory damages can be levied instead. At issue, is whether the trial judge can impose statutory damages when the actual profits of the infringer are known. Copyright infringement In 1942, an independent ... supreme.justia.com us 344 228 case.html title F. W. Woolworth Co. v. Contemporary Arts, Inc. Full Text ... v1 cases 407351 title F. W. WOOLWORTH CO. v. CONTEMPORARY ARTS, Inc. last Jackson first Robert ... caselaw.lp.findlaw.com cgi bin getcase.pl?court US&vol 344&invol 228 title F. W. WOOLWORTH CO. v. CONTEMPORARY ARTS, Inc. last Jackson first Robert date 1952 12 22 publisher FindLaw accessdate 2009 06 ... V. Contemporary Arts Category United States Supreme Court cases Category United States copyright case ... more details
scholar case?case 7640267488041819002 Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd., et al , Order ... 10.1 was denied by the Australian High Court. ref name SydneyHighCourt Samsung Electronics Co. v. Apple Inc. , NSD1792 2011. Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia Sydney . ref U.S. courts The injunction ... infringement, and unjust enrichment . ref name samsungComplaint Complaint, Apple v. Samsung , CV ... story 25087 Apple Also Manipulated Evidence in Dutch Apple v Samsung Case Apple Also Manipulated Evidence in Dutch Apple v Samsung Case , OS News, osnews.com, 2011 8 19. ref ref name earley ..., rather than by innovating and competing with better products and services. ref name googSezFoul ... 1 28. ref See also Smartphone patent licensing and litigation Apple Inc. litigation Motorola Mobility v. Apple Inc. References Reflist Navboxes list1 Samsung Electronics Samsung phones Apple iOS Category Apple Inc. litigation Category Lawsuits Category United States lawsuits Category Intellectual ... more details
term in Japan for any large ape. ref Sheff 124. ref Universal City Studios, Inc. v. Nintendo, Co., Ltd ... City Studios, Inc. v. Nintendo Co., Ltd. United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit July 15, 1986 . Universal City Studios, Inc. v. Nintendo Co., Ltd. cite web title Universal Goes Ape month ... article DEFAULTSORT Universal City Studios, Inc. V. Nintendo Co., Ltd. Category Video game law Category ...Infobox Court Case name Universal v. Nintendo court United States District Court for the Southern District of New York image USDCSDNY.jpg date decided 1984 full name Universal City Studios, Inc. v. Nintendo Co., Ltd. citations 746 F.2d 112 judges Robert W. Sweet prior actions subsequent actions opinions Italic title force true Universal City Studios, Inc. v. Nintendo Co., Ltd. was a case heard by the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York by Judge Robert W. Sweet . In their complaint, Universal Studios alleged that Nintendo s video game Donkey Kong arcade game Donkey Kong was a trademark infringement of King Kong , the plot and characters of which Universal claimed for their own. Nintendo argued that Universal had themselves proved that King Kong s plot and characters were in the public domain in Universal City Studios, Inc. v. RKO General, Inc. Sweet ruled that Universal had acted in bad faith by threatening Nintendo s licensees and that it had no right over the name King Kong or the characters and story. He further held that there was no possibility for consumers ... in Universal City Studios, Inc. v. RKO General Inc., et al. , wherein they proved that the plot of King ... for the likes of PepsiCo, Inc. PepsiCo. , General Foods Corporation General Foods , and Pfizer Inc ... of his services in the Donkey Kong case. It is rumored that a copy of the game was eventually sent ... law es Caso Universal City Studios contra Nintendo pt Caso Universal City Studios, Inc. contra Nintendo Co., Ltd. ... more details
orphan date February 2010 italic title force true Armendariz v. Foundation Health Psychcare Services, Inc. , case citation 24 Cal. 4th 83 2000 , was a case decided by the Supreme Court of California that defined the California standard for unconscionability . The court required that there be both a procedural and substantive element of unconscionability for a contract to be voided. ref Ayres, I. & Speidel , R.E. Studies in Contract Law, Seventh Edition. Foundation Press, New York, NY 2008, p. 584 ref References reflist Category United States contract case law Category 2000 in United States case law Category California state case law US case law stub ... more details
Infobox SCOTUS case Litigants Sereboff v. Mid Atlantic Medical Services, Inc. ArgueDate March 28 ArgueYear 2006 DecideDate May 15 DecideYear 2006 FullName Joel Sereboff and Marlene Sereboff, Petitioners v. Mid Atlantic Medical Services, Incorporated USVol 547 USPage 356 Citation 126 S. Ct. 1869 164 L. Ed. 2d 612 2006 U.S. LEXIS 3954 74 U.S.L.W. 4240 37 Employee Benefits Cas. BNA 1929 Prior Motion to dismiss denied, summary judgment granted in part to plaintiff, 303 Federal Supplement F. Supp. 2d 691 United States District Court for the District of Maryland D. Md. 2004 judgment for plaintiff, 316 F. Supp. 2d 265 D. Md. 2004 affirmed in part, vacated, 407 Federal Reporter Federal Reporter, Third Series F.3d 212 United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit 4th Cir. 2005 certiorari cert. granted, 126 S. Ct. 735 2005 Subsequent Holding An ERISA plan fiduciary may seek reimbursement for medical costs from the proceeds of the beneficiary s personal injury settlement. Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed in relevant part. SCOTUS 2006 2009 Majority Roberts JoinMajority unanimous LawsApplied ... Sereboff v. Mid Atlantic Medical Services, Inc. , Case citation 547 U.S. 356 2006 , was a case decided ... s decision .pdf DEFAULTSORT Sereboff V. Mid Atlantic Medical Services, Inc. Category Employee ... the beneficiaries of a health insurance plan administered by Mid Atlantic Medical Services, Inc ... Med. Servs., Inc. v. Sereboff , 303 Federal Supplement F. Supp. 2d 691 United States District Court ... Circuit affirmed in relevant part. ref Mid Atlantic Med. Servs., Inc. v. Sereboff , 407 ... West Life & Annuity Ins. Co. v. Knudson , 534 U.S. 204 2002 , in which the Court rejected an ERISA ... authorize remedies that were typically available in equity. ref Mertens v. Hewitt Associates , 508 ... Regarding the basis for Mid Atlantic s claim, the Court considered Barnes v. Alexander , 232 U.S. ... omitted. ref See also Ark. Dep t of Human Servs. v. Ahlborn , 547 U.S. 268 2006 , a case decided ... more details
Encyclopedia
top
