Similarly, in Hotmail Corp. v. Van$ Money Pie, Inc., supra, 1998 WL 388389 at page *7, the court found the evidence supported a finding that the defendant's mailings "fill[ed] up Hotmail's computer storage space and threaten [ed] to damage Hotmail's ability to service its legitimate customers." America Online, Inc. v. IMS, decided on summary judgment, was deemed factually indistinguishable from CompuServe; the court observed that in both cases the plaintiffs "alleged that processing the bulk e-mail cost them time and money and burdened their equipment." (America Online, Inc. v. IMS, supra, 24 F.Supp.2d at p. 550.) The same court, in America Online, Inc. v. LCGM, Inc., supra, 46 F.Supp.2d at page 452, simply followed CompuServe and its earlier America Online decision, quoting the former's explanation that UCE burdened the computer's processing power and
Ruling: Ultimately the court ruled in favor of Smith (8-0) and it was decided by the Federal District Court that although McDonald was within the general protection of the Petition Clause it does not grant him absolute immunity. Although the right to petition government officials is undoubtedly an important aspect in self-government, this right is still subject to the same legal limitations as the First Amendment. Therefore the claims that were made in the petition were subject to libel lawsuits. The Court of Appeals affirmed. On certiorari the US Supreme Court affirmed the judgments made by the other courts.
Facts: Joshua got injured due to the fact that Zev was negligent. He consulted with Jack, an attorney, to explore bringing a lawsuit. Jack accepted the case on a standard contingency basis, which called for him to receive one-third of any recovery. Zev’s insurance company agreed to pay Joshua $900,000 for his medical expenses and his pain and suffering. As per the agreement between Jack and Joshua, the $900,000 was paid to Jack as Joshua’s attorney.
“Touro University International” Jannie Harp ETH 501 MOD 1 Martha Stewart Professor: Dr. Steven Gold Martha Stewart handled the indictment improperly, because she knew she would have lost 51,222 dollars. Martha Stewart gained approximately 228,000 dollars from the information obtain from Peter Bacanovic. (Martha Watch) Martha Stewart being a member of the Board of Governors knew the laws of trading. Stewart holds a Series 7 license as a licensed stockbroker; she knew her actions may have well been illegal. She's not just some innocent who made a mistake or wanted to save her investment.
v. Andy Lee, Benton County Sheriff, and David Clark Wal-mart tried to appeal the decision that the jury made in favor of David Clark awarding him damages for intrusion invasion of privacy and false-light invasion of privacy among a few other things. In this case David Clark had been an employer of Wal-mart for nine years and another employee had stated that David had received stolen goods from him. So loss prevention questioned David about some fishing poles and life vests. David said that he had nothing like that and they were more than welcome to come and make sure of that. What actually happened is the Rogers police were called to come and help along with the search.
The adventure began in 1970 when a British journalist teamed up with Acar to determine if one of the best museums in the world had in fact, knowingly purchased looted antiquities. The alleged theft took place in a region in southwestern Turkey called Usak. The looters took “363 objects, including gold and silver vessels and jewelry, a pair of marble sphinxes, and some pieces of wall painting”. Once the Turkish authorities had determined the objects as illicit, they filled a lawsuit in Manhattan. After being humiliated by nationwide and worldwide newspapers, in September 1993, the Metropolitan Museum of Art issued an apology and sent back the Lydian treasures to Turkey.
Dontae caine Lgs 3:30-4:45 4/6/2013 MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISSON GROUNDS THAT THE STOLEN VALOR ACT IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL To: Law partner to the current state of the law From: Dontae Reshard Caine Re: Stolen Valor Act as Unconstitutional Issue: Does the First Amendment protects false statements of fact – made without any apparent intent to defraud or gain anything? If so, what level of protection do they deserve. Six Justices agreed that some protection was warranted, but disagreed as to the amount, and three Justices believe that the First Amendment does not protect such lies at all. Background: The defendant has been charged by criminal complaint with one count of violation of 18U.S.C. § 704, popularly known as the Stolen Valor Act of 2005.
Critical Analysis on “The Missing Piece to the Gang-Violence Debate.” Dan Gardner’s publish, “The Missing Piece to the Gang-Violence Debate”, is strongly controversial in his position against increasing enforcement of drug laws, and boosting penalties for violators. He believes that you should actually limit enforcement and hardship of sentencing when it comes to drugs. Was his argument persuasive enough in the essay to actually influence his wishes into society? Personally, I don’t think so. Gardner’s ideas are too drastic and I believe he didn’t have enough support in his argument that his plans would actually decrease the murders in gang violence.
Since the Criminal Code is a strictly federal jurisdiction to limit its control would deter its ability to govern as a whole. The Controlled Drugs and Substance Act was put in place for the protection of society and human health. It would be detrimental to take away from its crucial role in protecting Canadian Citizens. “The doctrine of interjurisdictional immunity has been applied to circumscribed areas of activity referred to in the cases as undertakings...It has never been applied to a broad and amorphous area of jurisdiction.” It is recognized that applying the doctrine of Interjurisdictional immunity would be unpresident and would open debate of the withstand ability of the Controlled Drug and Substance Act in future cases. In addition “the doctrine is in tension with the emergent practice of cooperative federalism” .
He is indirectly saying; court’s rulings give back power to the people. So, therefore, they are not superior to the other two branches but rather, as written by Hamilton (1788) “the power of the people is superior to both…” (p.257). Also, Hamilton strongly rooted for judicial review and regards Brutus’ fear against it as a false reasoning based on misconstrue fact. Hamilton (1788) stated that it is the judiciary’s job “to declare all acts contrary to the manifest tenor of the constitution void,” (p. 258) and without judicial review, “all the reservations of particular rights or privileges would amount to nothing” (p. 258). Hamilton (1788) defended the need for the