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
student, Galatasaray University, Turkey A Maltese court has refused to enforce a $740 million default judgment issued by the 15th Judicial Circuit Court of Florida (Palm Beach County) in a defamation suit brought by Applicant Mehmet Tatlici against his half-brother, Defendant Ugur Tatlici. [1]
For years, they have sued both broadcasters and digital media companies trying to exploit an ambiguity in copyright law over the status of pre-1972 sound recordings – songs as recorded by a particular band or artist before February 1972 when sound recordings first became subject to federal copyright law.
The judge-made doctrine of qualified immunity generally shields government officials from liability unless they violate “clearly established” law. In 2018, then 67-year-old Lynn Hamlet was incarcerated in the Martin Correctional Institution, a state prison in southern Florida. A federal district court in Florida ruled for Hoxie.
Supreme Court'sdecision in Facebook v. Duguid closes one door to potential Telephone Consumer Protection Act lawsuits, Florida's newly amended state law — featuring a broader autodialer definition — has opened another, say attorneys at Buchanan Ingersoll. Although the U.S.
In a decision this week, the Florida Supreme Court rejected claims by Flo & Eddie (of the 1960s band the Turtles) that there was a common law public performance right in pre-1972 sound recordings in the state of Florida (the opinion is available here ). Could California decide differently?
The justices recently granted certiorari in two cases challenging state laws that restrict social media companies’ ability to moderate content on their platforms. The key issue before the Court is whether the Texas and Floridalaws violate the First Amendment. Facts of the Cases The two cases before the Court, Moody v.
Gambling on tribal lands first came to prominence with a Seminole casino in Florida in the late 1970s. The Supreme Court first addressed the problem squarely in its 1987 decision in California v. Some background about the general compromise that governs that problem sets the stage for this dispute.
Obviously, that settlement does not appear to resolve the issues with independent sound recording owners (like Flo & Eddie who brought the actions that have resulted in NY and California decisions finding a performance right in pre-1972 recordings in those two states). First, a review of the issue with pre-1972 sound recordings.
But the court explained that it was “not convinced, however, that Laufer abandoned her case in an effort to evade our review,” and it added that it might “exercise our discretion differently in a future case.” This article was originally published at Howe on the Court.
When those assets actually belong to someone else, federal law provides a 30-day window for third parties with an interest in property seized in connection with drug charges to file paperwork demanding its return. Luis Sanchez is a part-owner of a small business in Florida selling electronics to Latin American customers.
Yesterday, the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued its decision reversing the District Court’s opinion and sending the case back to the District Court for additional hearings. Federal law did not recognize a copyright in sound recordings until 1972.
Washington’s bipartisan redistricting commission redrew the state’s 49 legislative districts, including Legislative District 15, a semi-rural district east of Yakima, and the map was enacted into law. Washington initially defended the district’s lawfulness but later conceded that its lines were invalid. The suit now known as Trevino v.
Pre-1972 sound recordings are also still an issue, with state appeals courts looking at US District Courtdecisions in New York and Florida, trying to decide if a performance right exists in these recordings in these two states (we wrote about the NY appeal here , and the initial Floridadecision here ).
Supreme Court unanimously held that the Constitution permits the retrial of a defendant following a trial in an improper venue conducted before a jury drawn from the wrong district. Facts of the Case Timothy Smith was indicted in the Northern District of Florida for theft of trade secrets from a website owned by StrikeLines.
Supreme Court unanimously held that the Constitution permits the retrial of a defendant following a trial in an improper venue conducted before a jury drawn from the wrong district. Facts of the Case Timothy Smith was indicted in the Northern District of Florida for theft of trade secrets from a website owned by StrikeLines.
The American Civil Liberties Union has challenged the constitutionality of the Floridalaw, making some of the same arguments that caused several state supreme courts to strike down broad bans on land ownership by foreign citizens of Asian countries decades ago, including a pivotal California Supreme Courtdecision in 1952.”
There are state courts and federal courts, state statutes and federal statutes, state common law and federal common law. This feeling of pity is compounded when I imagine this same lawyer trying to advise her client as to whether a choice-of-court clause will be enforced by a court in the United States.
The US Court of Appeals this week determined that the FCC’s requirement that broadcasters confirm by searching DOJ and FCC databases that all buyers of program time on their stations are not representatives of foreign governments was beyond the power of the FCC as authorized by Congress.
As we wrote just before Christmas , the New York Court of Appeals determined that there was no public performance right in pre-1972 sound recordings under New York state law. An issue in a Federal case is certified or referred to a state court when there are issues of state law that control the determination of the Federal case.
The music battle continues over the question of whether state laws provide a public performance right in pre-1972 sound recordings. The Florida case has been referred to that state’s highest court for an advisory ruling on the state of the state’s law on the issue, and earlier this week, the same thing happened in California.
FCC , which rejected the requirement that broadcast licensees independently check two federal databases to verify whether an airtime lessee is a “foreign governmental entity” (see our Broadcast Law Blog article on the Court’sdecision here ).
The decision ( available here in a version subject to revision) was reached after the US Court of Appeals certified the question to the state court as being necessary to resolve the appeal of a US District Courtdecision which had found such a right to exist in a lawsuit brought by Flo & Eddie of the band the Turtles against Sirius XM Radio.
Despite a series of courtdecisions rejecting any First Amendment claim of pirates, and denying any claim that these low-power, local stations did not implicate the FCC's power over interstate commerce regulation, pirates have never gone away. (see Find out where the illegal signal is originating.
Share In a major election-lawdecision, the Supreme Court ruled on Tuesday that although the Constitution gives state legislatures the power to regulate federal elections, state courts can supervise the legislature’s exercise of that power. Roberts agreed that the court did have the power to decide the case on the merits.
One of those four involves an issue on which the court already is considering 11 other relisted cases: whether the Sixth and 14th Amendments require the use of a 12-person jury to try defendants accused of felonies, rather than the six-person jury Florida affords for many such offenses. The district court refused, but the U.S.
Each month, Arnold & Porter and the Sabin Center for Climate Change Law collect and summarize developments in climate-related litigation, which we also add to our U.S. The court rejected Exxon’s argument that it could withhold documents based on an accountant-client privilege under Texas law. and non-U.S. Pritzker , Nos.
Share The Supreme Court will hear oral arguments next week in a dispute over whether a Florida woman who retired from her job as a firefighter can bring a lawsuit against her former employer under the Americans with Disabilities Act alleging discrimination in how benefits are provided in the years after she left her job.
Concealed weapons permits are still available for gun owners who wish to have their right to carry recognized in other states via reciprocity laws. 16 other states currently allow legal carry through reciprocity agreements with South Carolina without any other restrictions. Permitless carry is now legal in 27 US states.
The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) on Wednesday announced it had filed a lawsuit to block the application of a legal opinion in connection with Idaho’s abortion laws. In 2017, the US Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit struck down a Floridalaw preventing medical professionals from asking patients about firearm ownership.
Share Tired of reading jargon-filled law review articles with hundreds of footnotes? The perfect antidote is Painting Constitutional Law: Xavier Cortada’s Images of Constitutional Rights , edited by Professors M.C. One of Cortada’s more jarring images concerns the court’s 1976 decision in Proffitt v.
Share Each weekday, we select a short list of news articles, commentary, and other noteworthy links related to the Supreme Court. What to know (Morgan Fischer, The Arizona Republic) City Government Unions Are Shrinking After Supreme CourtDecision (Claudia Irizarry Aponte & Suhail Bhat, The City) Gay marriage is legal in Texas.
The US Supreme Court announced Monday it will review the legality of state efforts to ban gender-affirming medical care for minors — a contentious issue in a nation deeply divided over transgender rights and the role of medical intervention in youth gender identity. The case, US v.
Some older Supreme Courtdecisions support that theory of consent. Some courts read [Supreme Court precedent] as effectively foreclosing [this consent-by-registration theory of jurisdiction], while others insist it remains viable.”. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit affirmed. Next up is Kelly v.
In 2016, the US Supreme Court issued an opinion on Hursts v. Florida finding, “The Sixth Amendment requires a jury, not a judge, to find each fact necessary to impose a sentence of death.” ” In 2017, Alabama passed AL SB16 , which forbade judges from overriding a jury sentencing verdict in capital cases.
An increasing number of Americans now believe US Supreme Courtdecision-making is based more on political ideology than the rule of law. Evidence that this disturbing trend is true can be found when taking a closer look at the shift in how the Court has dealt with juvenile cases dating back to 2005.
For a time, that decision stopped the death penalty in its tracks and offered a stinging critique of its unfairness. Yet it left the door open for states to implement or reform their own laws – and some chose to preserve capital punishment. Four years after Furman, the death penalty was back before the Supreme Court.
But after roughly 90 minutes of oral argument, it seemed that the justices might not reach that question at all and might instead hold that the case is moot – that is, no longer a live controversy – after Laufer dismissed her case in the lower court.
It can be next to impossible to see how law enforcement — in league with paid, self-styled “experts” — spreads new, often unproven methods. The system is at its most opaque when prosecutors know evidence is unfit for court but choose to game the rules, hoping judges and juries will believe it and vote to convict. . … Make it sing!”.
With just a few weeks left before the Supreme Court’s summer recess, we’re entering the busiest phase of the year for relists. The court granted review in two cases on Monday: one-time relist Facebook v. Florida and Moore v. Becerra , involving the calculation of reimbursement rates under the Medicare Act.
And the court denied review to a group of 13 much-relisted cases that raised the question whether felony defendants have a constitutional right to a 12-person jury rather than just a six-person one. Justice Neil Gorsuch filed an opinion dissenting from the denial of cert , arguing that the court’s 1970 decision in Williams v.
Bream asked Walz about his prior declaration that there is “no guarantee to free speech on misinformation or hate speech”— a statement that runs counter to decades of Supreme Courtdecisions. School districts have always been given wide latitude in making such decisions on curriculum or library policies. “The
If the lower courtsdecision allowing RJR Vapors case to go forward stands, the FDA says, other manufacturers will also try to get around the restrictions that federal law imposes on where such challenges can be filed. The law at the center of the case is the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act.
The case also presents the question whether a public-accommodation law that authorizes secular but not religious exemptions is generally applicable under Employment Division v. Smith , and if so, whether the Supreme Court should overrule Smith. They invoke Rapanos v.
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