Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
On March 26 and 27, 2013, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments in cases that give the Court an opportunity to render a definitive ruling on the right of same-sex couples to marry. In Perry v. Brown, 671 F.3d 1052 (9th Cir.), cert. granted sub nom. Hollingsworth v. Perry, 133 S. Ct. 786 (2012), the Court agreed to hear the case in which lower courts struck down Proposition 8, the ballot initiative that' amended California's Constitution to define marriage as the union of a man and a woman. In Windsor v. United States, 699 F.3d 169 (2d Cir.), cert. granted, 133 S. Ct. 786 (2012), the Court agreed to hear one of several cases around the country in which lower courts struck down Section 3 of the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which limits the definition of marriage to heterosexual unions for purposes of federal law. See DOMA ' 3 (codified at 1 U.S.C. ' 7).
But while the Court agreed to ' and did ' accept briefs and hear oral arguments in both Hollingsworth and Windsor, there is a possibility that the Justices will not weigh in on the merits of the same-sex marriage issue in either case. In both matters, the Justices asked the parties to brief and argue questions about the standing of the petitioners, and in Windsor, they also asked whether the Court even has jurisdiction under Article III of the Constitution to determine the case. Then, when counsel appeared before the Court in March, the Justices insisted on hearing arguments that addressed the standing issue before they would take argument on the merits. If ' as some believe will happen ' the Justices decide that the petitioners have no standing, or if they determine that the Court has no jurisdiction, there would be no ruling on the merits concerning the constitutionality of Proposition 8 or DOMA when decisions are handed down in June. That, in turn, would let stand the lower court rulings that struck down Proposition 8 and DOMA as unconstitutional.
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
There's current litigation in the ongoing Beach Boys litigation saga. A lawsuit filed in 2019 against Nevada residents Mike Love and his wife Jacquelyne in the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada that alleges inaccurate payment by the Loves under the retainer agreement and seeks $84.5 million in damages.
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
The real property transfer tax does not apply to all leases, and understanding the tax rules of the applicable jurisdiction can allow parties to plan ahead to avoid unnecessary tax liability.