I find this case to be contradicting because what is illegal in the copy right act somewhat violates your constitutional rights. (Eric Corley, 2000) Is it possible to strike an appropriate balance between the rights of both groups on this issue? I do not believe it is possible to balance out the rights of both groups without contradiction. You either can make a few copies or none according to the opposing side. I am completely against breaking the law but I myself have brought a CD for my father and burned it to my iPod so that I can also listen to it.
Recently, Wiretime ran an advertisement in a well-known industry magazine blasting BUGusa by stating that their products are inferior and have a very limited lifespan. This would be classified as an intentional tort because these statements “have the potential to impact business relationships and operations” (Melvin, 2011). This particular case would be listed as defamation and categorized further as trade libel. To be considered trade libel the “statement needs to be (1) a clear and specific reference to the disparaged party or product (e.g., using the actual brand name of the product), (2) made with either knowledge that the statement was false or reckless disregard for the truth, and (3) communicated to a third party (similar to defamation)” (Melvin, 2011). References Melvin, S. P. (2011).
Today’s society finds it necessary question to what range a jury can take the laws of America, change them, and make them their own. A jury can subject laws created through aggressive hindsight and discussion which leads to a dismissal of a case. This leaves the question as to if jury nullification weakens the rule of law that is in the American Constitution. The altercations of the laws are the result of the juries repeated use of jury nullification. If juries continue to use jury nullification, it will result in a weakened democratic system.
COMM400 Case Study #2 Abstract I chose the case of New Kids on the Block v. News America Publishing, Inc. This case involves issues of the Lanham Trademark Act of 1946, trademark infringement, and the restraints that can legally be enforced if the trademark’s owner claims it has been used inappropriately. Although the First Amendment protects unauthorized trademark usage in comedic, parodied or critical usage situations, it does not guarantee that trademark usage will never be used without the owner’s consent, especially for the purpose of newsgathering. The core issue in this case is whether or not trademark infringement actually happened. In order for the court to determine whether or not a trademark has been infringed, considerations such as the “strength of marks, the similarity in appearance of the products, the meaning of the marks, the kinds of goods in question,, and the intention of defendant using the mark” must be considered (2012).
It is necessary for the C to show that the act was either INTENTIONAL or NEGLIGENT I.e. to distinguish between which head of liability they wish to sue under: Fowler v Lanning 1959 1 QB 426 |Court | | |Facts |In a writ (now a claim form) the C claimed damages for trespass to the person. In his statement of claim (now statement of case) he alleged that on | |
3) Fault; In order to determine fault of a public figure (Marilyn) we must look at Actual Malice In a legal sense, "actual malice" has nothing to do with ill will or disliking someone and wishing him harm. Rather, courts have defined "actual malice" in the defamation context as publishing a statement while either • knowing that it is false; or • acting with reckless disregard for the statement's truth or falsity. Smitty took pictures of Marilyn and sold them to the tabloids and Jakes Gym. In each incident Smitty provided a lie stating Marilyn had given her endorsement and consent for Jake, and she had been engaged in a sexual relationship with her coach. Smitty is at fault for those statements and is liable.
• the man could sue Maria for unjust enrichment. • Maria would have to pay whatever a court finds to be "fair." • the man could sue Maria for breach of an implied, unilateral contract. 4. The power of preemption is derived from • the Supremacy Clause.
Chestnut contended that Mr. Reeves was terminated for inaccurate record keeping. Actions taken against Mr. Reeves were not in compliance with the federal employment laws: prima facie case of discrimination, sufficient evidence for the trier of fact to disbelieve the respondent’s nondiscriminatory explanation and the respondent’s explanation for his decision was pre-textual. Mr. Reeves was able to prove that the stated reasons was not the real reason for his discharge and age discrimination was the real reason for termination. REEVES v. SANDERSON A prima-facie case is a lawsuit that alleges facts adequate to prove the underlying conduct supporting the cause of action and thereby prevail. Sanderson stated that their reason for terminating Mr. Reeves was due to inaccurate record keeping.
Thomas Gibbons however operated under a coasting license granted by the Federal Government. Ogden asked the New York Courts to issue an injunction forbidding Gibbons’ landing rights to the port of New York. The New York courts issued the injunction and Gibbons appealed to the U.S. courts, arguing that the federal coasting license superseded New York’s licensing requirements. This case questioned the meaning of Commerce Clause in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution. It questioned the meaning of the word commerce in the Constitution; the trial would define whether commerce would be used broadly or narrowly.
Main Claim The Defense of Marriage Act is an unconstitutional law. Republicans are defending the Defense of Marriage Act. Reasons 1. A federal district judge in NY rules the “Act” violates the Constitution because it charges federal estate tax to same-sex spouses but not to opposite-sex spouses. 2.