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
After deposing Dr. Steege, defendants moved to exclude Dr. Steege on the basis that he was not competent to testify under Tenn. The trial courtruled that “Dr. Steege did not meet the locality rule outlined in Shipley v. In her initial expert disclosures, plaintiff identified Dr. Steege from Chapel Hill, North Carolina.
The filing is particularly interesting because it focuses not as much on the BDSM or bondage bears being marketed by Balenciaga, but the inclusion the image of a child pornography courtruling. The company, however, could face some significant legal challenges over its own role in the campaign.
The Supreme Courtruled that tort law could not be used to overcome First Amendment protections for free speech or the free press. The Court sought to create “breathing space” for the media by articulating that standard that now applies to both public officials and public figures. Reader’s Digest Association , 443 U.S.
In addition, the court found that the company had failed to show that the alleged RICO violations proximately caused injury to its business or property. The court also dismissed defamation and related state tort claims. On October 4 , the federal district court for the Northern District of California vacated the U.S.
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