This site uses cookies to improve your experience. To help us insure we adhere to various privacy regulations, please select your country/region of residence. If you do not select a country, we will assume you are from the United States. Select your Cookie Settings or view our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.
Cookie Settings
Cookies and similar technologies are used on this website for proper function of the website, for tracking performance analytics and for marketing purposes. We and some of our third-party providers may use cookie data for various purposes. Please review the cookie settings below and choose your preference.
Used for the proper function of the website
Used for monitoring website traffic and interactions
Cookie Settings
Cookies and similar technologies are used on this website for proper function of the website, for tracking performance analytics and for marketing purposes. We and some of our third-party providers may use cookie data for various purposes. Please review the cookie settings below and choose your preference.
Strictly Necessary: Used for the proper function of the website
Performance/Analytics: Used for monitoring website traffic and interactions
In this week’s episode, Josh Escovedo and Scott Hervey discuss an update to the litigation over Andy Warhol’s series of portraits of the artist Prince ( Andy Warhol Foundation v Goldsmith). That decision overturned a lower courtdecision in favor of the Warhol Foundation.
In this week’s episode, Josh Escovedo and Scott Hervey discuss the litigation over Andy Warhol’s series of portraits of the artist Prince ( Andy Warhol Foundation v Goldsmith ). The decision overturned a lower courtdecision in favor of the Warhol Foundation.
In reaching its decision, the Court noted the important distinction between “the classes of cases a court may entertain (subject-matter jurisdiction)” and “nonjurisdictional claim-processing rules, which seek to promote the orderly progress of litigation by requiring that the parties take certain procedural steps at certain specified times.”
Talking about the jurisdiction of the Courts, the Court below, by virtue of Section 272 of the Constitution of Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended) has jurisdiction to entertain cases such as recovery of debts, as in the instant case on appeal. 6] First, the Court of Appeal (Hussaini JCA) in A.B.U. Conclusion.
This week’s federal Court of Appeals order was very direct, relying on the state courtdecision that there was no public performance right to end the case.
In March of this year, the court heard argument in another COVID insurance case, Another Planet Entertainment, LLC v. Vigilant Insurance Co. with an opinion expected by June 3. Sundance, Inc. 2022) _ U.S. _ [142 S.Ct.
It may mean that Sirius was tired of the litigation, and wanted to buy peace, at least with the major labels. The litigation may also have been interfering with other business between the company and the labels, so peace may have brought some security. What does this settlement mean?
They want a federal court to order the Executive Branch to alter its arrest policies so as to make more arrests,” Justice Kavanaugh wrote. Federal courts have not traditionally entertained that kind of lawsuit; indeed, the States cite no precedent for a lawsuit like this.
In this case, however, the challenged orders and regulations have not been established to be arbitrary, i.e., lacking a rational basis, except for one subpart of one order regarding social distancing at entertainment venues that initially made no exception for families or individuals living in the same household.
Share A trade group for the adult entertainment industry will appear at the Supreme Court on Wednesday in its challenge to a Texas law that requires pornography sites to verify the age of their users before providing access for example, by requiring a government-issued identification. 1181 should be subject to strict scrutiny.
When agencies refused to turn over public records, ProPublica’s lawyers threatened litigation and in one case sued. The question, then, was how to get the method into trial without litigating the science behind it or teeing up an appeal. He said the reviews were good: Audiences found Harpster entertaining and well-informed.
We organize all of the trending information in your field so you don't have to. Join 99,000+ users and stay up to date on the latest articles your peers are reading.
You know about us, now we want to get to know you!
Let's personalize your content
Let's get even more personalized
We recognize your account from another site in our network, please click 'Send Email' below to continue with verifying your account and setting a password.
Let's personalize your content