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
Laura Heymann (William & Mary Law) Jeffrey Hunt Angie Jin Josh King Jonathan Klinger Prof. Stacey Lantagne (now of Western New England Law) Prof. Christa Laser (Cleveland StateLaw) Prof. Yassine Lefouili (Toulouse School of Economics) David Levine (Elon Law) Yoram Lichtenstein Prof. Jeff Kosseff (U.S.
Where the motion to dismiss concerns questions of law, additional discovery is not required. Therefore, as MindGeek’s motion to dismiss concerns only questions of law, no discovery is required to rule on the motion to dismiss. ” * Doe v. Grant, 2021 Ariz. LEXIS 1327 (Az. Superior Ct. Puppies, 2020 Ariz. LEXIS 851 (Az.
” The court distinguishes a long list of precedents that it says don’t apply because they “involved state action that interfered with messaging or other expressive conduct—a critical element that is not present in the case before this court.”
By guest blogger Lisa Ramsey , Professor of Law, University of San Diego School of Law The Supreme Court will likely hold in Elster that Section 2(c) is consistent with the First Amendment, but will it clarify how to balance trademark and free speech rights? Section 2(c) is a viewpoint-neutral trademark law.
I’m still blogging Section 230 cases as I see them, even though these posts are likely to have only historical value. ] * * * The court summarizes the horrifying allegations: In April 2022, Defendant Bendjy Charles (“Charles”) and Romelus raped Plaintiff. Charles and Romelus filmed each other while they raped Plaintiff.
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