Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Features
A federal judge has pressed pause on a group of lawsuits targeting the maker of augmented reality game Pokémon Go with nuisance and trespass claims for placing virtual landmarks on top of real property.
Features
In a recent case, the U.S. Supreme Court applied what has come to be known as the <i>Penn Central</i> balancing test to uphold New York City's refusal to approve an office tower atop Grand Central Terminal.
Features
Defendants in entertainment industry cases often invoke California's "anti-SLAPP" statute, Calif. Civ. Code §425.16, which is meant to bar lawsuits filed to muffle free speech activities or a legal right to petition. This summer, some noteworthy court decisions have come out of California that involved anti-SLAPP motions filed by attorneys who are defendants themselves in entertainment litigations.
Features
In <i>Matal v. Tam</i>, the trademark case involving the name of the Asian-American rock band The Slants, the SCOTUS held that the portion of §2(a) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. §1052(a), that prohibits the federal registration of potentially disparaging trademarks and service marks, violated the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment.
Features
The Supreme Court as a whole appears aligned and motivated to review critically federal and state asset forfeiture procedures. In addition, Attorney General Sessions last month restored the federal forfeiture of property seized by state and local law enforcement ("federal adoptions"), but with certain additional safeguards.
Features
During this year's annual Tony awards recognizing Broadway theater, Whoopi Goldberg took to the stage to announce that the musical revival of Falsettos would be hitting movie theaters nationwide in July. Falsettos, which played at Lincoln Center Theater in New York, was nominated for five Tonys, but a deal had been negotiated long before the June 11 awards broadcast to make the stage production into a piece of event cinema.
Columns & Departments
A look at several rulings, including an article 78 proceeding challenging grant of an area variance to proposed operators of a religious school.
Features
In <i>Matal v. Tam,</i> the SCOTUS held that a portion of Section 2(a) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. §1052(a), prohibiting the federal registration of potentially disparaging trademarks and service marks, violated the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment.
Features
<b><I>Potential Ramifications of SEC Disgorgement Being a Penalty</b></i><p> <b><i>Part One of a Two-Part Article</I></b><p>In reference to <I>Kokesh</I>, most commentators have focused on the five-year limitations period, which certainly carries important ramifications for the SEC. But as we describe here, the Supreme Court's ruling that "SEC disgorgement constitutes a penalty" has more far-reaching ramifications.
