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 two trips to the 9th Circuit, a remand from the Supreme Court, and nearly six years of motions and posturing, the outcome of the litigation was a permanent injunction against hiQ, a win for LinkedIn, and insolvency for scraper hiQ Labs. The court dismissed the market division argument on the grounds that it was time barred.
Judge Seeger starts by reinforcing the importance of judicial transparency: “A party who wants to depart from that longstanding tradition, and litigate in secret, must carry a heavy burden.” Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A, 2013 WL 12314399 (N.D.
We’ve blogged some of his cases before ( 1 , 2 ), including the lower court ruling in this case. In 2013, Philpot uploaded the photo to Wikimedia Commons, which is governed by the standard Creative Commons license requiring attribution. ” The district court granted summary judgment to IJR. Nature of Use.
Here are my prior years’ lists of the most important developments: 2020 , 2018 , 2016 , 2015 , 2014 , 2013. Do courts fully reopen or not? Also last year, the Minnesota Supreme Court approved a pilot project to permit “legal paraprofessionals” to provide legal services in certain matters.
My roundup of the top Internet Law developments of 2023: 10) California court bans targeted advertising (?). Facebook , a California appeals court shocked the advertising community by suggesting that using common demographic criteria for ad targeting, such as age or gender, may violate California’s anti-discrimination law.
We’d all been working for over a year on a contract that would make it possible, someday in the future, for everyone to have free and open access to all the official court decisions ever published in the United States. state and federal court decisions representing the bulk of our nation’s common law. Why Even Do This Project?
on March 8, 2013, and what it meant to the authors and to the broader movement for innovation in law. Watching the 2013 presentations about disruption of legal services might not be very shocking, because the format, the presentation, and the topics have become so widely adopted that they seem like they have always been around.
First published by the American Bar Association in 2013, and with occasional updates in the years since, the book is now out in a new edition , published by O’Connor in partnership with Nextpoint , the e-discovery and litigation support company.
on March 8, 2013, and what it meant to the authors and to the broader movement for innovation in law. Watching the 2013 presentations about disruption of legal services might not be very shocking, because the format, the presentation, and the topics have become so widely adopted that they seem like they have always been around.
First published by the American Bar Association in 2013, and with occasional updates in the years since, the book is now out in a new edition , published by O’Connor in partnership with Nextpoint , the e-discovery and litigation support company.
But that undersells the level of inconsistency in courts’ interpretations of the law of copyright preemption. At the circuit court level, the law of copyright preemption of contracts is a circuit split-plus, with at least two and as many as four differentiating positions on what might constitute preemption. 2d 426, 433 (8th Cir.1993)
Next week, he’s launching a new podcast, The Naked Emperor , that promises “a wild ride in search of an answer to the question: ‘How did Sam Bankman-Fried happen?’” It’s a question that, in retrospect, might seem logical to ask — particularly given the explosion of litigation that resulted. federal appeals court.
His experience ranges from that of a former night-shift word processor to a Wall Street IT director with a specialty in litigation technology. Roberta Tepper Roberta Tepper has been the lawyer assistance programs director at the State Bar of Arizona since 2013. Nelson, Esq.
25] However, due to a 2013 Supreme Court decision in Federal Trade Commission v. 27] Under this reasoning, the court found that Gilead’s 2014 patent deal with Teva did not violate antitrust laws. [28] 27] Under this reasoning, the court found that Gilead’s 2014 patent deal with Teva did not violate antitrust laws. [28]
Here are my prior years’ lists of the most important developments: 2020 , 2018 , 2016 , 2015 , 2014 , 2013. Do courts fully reopen or not? Also last year, the Minnesota Supreme Court approved a pilot project to permit “legal paraprofessionals” to provide legal services in certain matters.
The investigations come just one month after a class action was filed in the English High Court against YouTube for allegedly processing children’s data without obtaining parental permission or providing appropriate disclosures (see our September Round Up ).
We’d all been working for over a year on a contract that would make it possible, someday in the future, for everyone to have free and open access to all the official court decisions ever published in the United States. state and federal court decisions representing the bulk of our nation’s common law. Why Even Do This Project?
He was the Chair of the Corporate Counsel Section from 2020 - 2022, currently serves as the Chair of the Section’s Technology Committee and was the 2012-2013 Chair of the State Bar of Texas Computer & Technology Section. He has also been admitted to practice before the United State Supreme Court.
A Stanford Law School graduate, where he was president of the Stanford Law Review, Heller founded Casetext in 2013 after stints clerking for 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Michael Boudin and as an associate at law firm Ropes & Gray.
I hope this post makes clear why I get so irritated whenever I see the phrases referenced in a court opinion or invoked by a grandstanding politician. Wells , 2013 WL 1010589 (E.D.N.C. March 14, 2013) Jones v. 12, 2013) J.S. App Store Simulated Casino-Style Games Litigation , 2022 WL 4009918 (N.D. Superior Ct.
increase since 2013. From current court cases to diversity in law, there’s a topic for everyone. Get ready for insightful debates about hot topics from courts across the United States. This show covers everything from current court cases to practical advice on using your degree. By 2023, 164 million people in the U.S.
But this year, they seem to span the gamut of topics I cover, from analytics to artificial intelligence, from legal ethics to legal research, from new companies starting up to established companies shutting down, from products designed for litigation to products embroiled in litigation. What will be the top stories of 2023?
For somewhat of a time capsule of the past decade in legal technology, see my prior years’ lists of my most-popular posts: 2020 , 2019 , 2018 , 2017 , 2016 , 2015 , 2014 , 2013 , 2012 , 2011 , 2010 ). In Latest Litigation Gambit, ROSS Files Antitrust Claim Against Thomson Reuters, Alleging Research Monopoly (Jan.
Matt also conducts public records investigations and litigates cases challenging government surveillance. And this is one that the US Supreme Court has recognized is not really a bright line, in the case called Carpenter vs. United States from 2018. Thank you for taking out the time for this and welcome to our podcast…. FOX40 (Sep.
For somewhat of a time capsule of the past decade in legal technology, see my prior years’ lists of my most-popular posts: 2020 , 2019 , 2018 , 2017 , 2016 , 2015 , 2014 , 2013 , 2012 , 2011 , 2010 ). In Latest Litigation Gambit, ROSS Files Antitrust Claim Against Thomson Reuters, Alleging Research Monopoly (Jan.
Thats the basis for a recent opinion from a Florida federal district court that could have major implications for online services CSAM detection and reporting practices. Now, however, a district court decision suggests that providers can no longer take it for granted that they wont face liability for reporting non-CSAM.
And then I, then the second part I did litigation and employment. I enjoyed, you know, the kind of people problems, it had a litigation aspect, I liked the fact I ended up going to court quite a lot. Always a bit daunting when the client called and asked for something you weren’t quite sure where they were.
Congress’ statutory ban was misguided and counterproductive; the Supreme Court accepted Congress’ national security pretext way too credulously; Biden and Trump both disregarded the law; and Congress shrugged its shoulders at the administration’s dereliction. Within 10 years, that outcome seems inevitable.
It was unveiled nationally in 2013. It’s been used nationally since 2013. These are individuals if they have a credible claim for relief from removal, they have every reason to show up in immigration court for their hearings, these are the things that a risk tool, ostensibly measures. It was piloted in 2011–2012.
9) Supreme Court Tamps Down on Jawboning and Government Social Media Lawsuits. The Supreme Court is taking a steady stream of Internet Law cases, a trend that will continue for some time. Tomorrow, the Supreme Court will hear the TikTok ban, and Wednesday, the Supreme Court will hear Free Speech Coalition v.
We organize all of the trending information in your field so you don't have to. Join 5,000+ 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