Opinion on the Moseley v. V Secret Catalogue Case As the opinion delivered by Justice Stevens‚ the U.S. Supreme Court intended to answer the significant question in Moseley v. V Secret Catalogue‚ Inc. (Mosley case) that “whether objective proof of actual injury to the economic value of a famous mark is a requisite for relief under the 1996 Federal Trademark Dilution Act (FTDA)”. 1 Contrary to lower courts’ holdings‚ the Supreme Court stated in a unanimous decision that it is not enough to claim
Premium Trademark Property Supreme Court of the United States
Atavia Vigil Case Brief 38-1 Federal Election Comm’n v. Beaumont Facts In 2003‚ the corporation North Carolina Right to Life‚ Inc. sued the federal Election Commission claiming that that two FEC regulations were unconstitutional. First regulation challenged the one that stops corporations from making contributions Second regulation was the one that provides an exemption from the ban for corporate contributions for particular nonprofit corporations. NCRL believes that they met the exemption to
Premium Supreme Court of the United States First Amendment to the United States Constitution United States
Meritor Sav. Bank v. Vinson‚ 477 US 57 (1986) Facts: After being terminated a female bank employee filed an action under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964‚ 42 U.S.C.S. §2000e et seq.‚ claiming that she had been sexually harassed by her male supervisor. The US Supreme Court ruled that if the actions of the supervisor were unwelcome‚ than the respondent had a claim for sexual harassment on the basis of a hostile work environment‚ even if the sexual acts were voluntary. Issues: (1) Whether
Premium Sexual harassment United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
v. Cruikshank (1876). This case took place during the Reconstruction period of the south in Grand Parish‚ Louisiana. During this time there were many changes being made in the state and local government positions. In 1873 the governor of Louisiana appointed a new Judge
Premium United States Constitution United States United States Bill of Rights
CASE BRIEF Communications Law & Ethics 1. Title and Citation Denver Area Educational Consortium v. FCC ‚ 518 U.S. 727 2. Facts of the Case Various regulations implementing the Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act‚ which regulated indecent and obscene programming on cable television‚ violated the free speech rights of cable access programmers and cable television viewers under the First Amendment. 3. Issues It involves three sections of the Cable Television Consumer
Premium Supreme Court of the United States
Cook’s Pest Control‚ Inc. v. Robert and Margo Rebar1010897Supreme Court of AlabamaDecember 13‚ 2002FactsOn August 28‚ 2000‚ Cook’s Pest Control and Mr. & Mrs. Rebar entered into a renewable "Termite Control Agreement" for 1 year. Under that agreement‚ Cook’s Pest Control was obligated to inspect for and treat termites for the Rebars. On August 16‚ 2001‚ Mrs. Rebar paid for the renewal of the contract and submitted an "Addendum to Customer Agreement". The agreement changed the terms of the contract
Premium Contract Arbitration
Matthew Shepard Case Brief Facts: Twenty one year old‚ University of Wyoming college student‚ Matthew Shepard‚ died October 12‚ 1998 at 12:53 a.m. after spending five days in a comma due to massive injuries and head trauma in a robbery and hate crime assault (Matthew Shepard‚ 2000 [on-line]). Matthew Shepard met Aaron McKinney (22) and Russell Henderson (21) of Laramie in a local bar called Fireside Lounge. McKinney and Henderson had been drinking. The two led Shepard to believe they were
Premium Assault Hate crime Crimes
Maddox v. Montgomery United States Courts of Appeals‚ Eleventh Circuit 718 F.2d 1033 (11th Cir. 1983) Kenneth Davis CJAD 405‚ Section A Professor Alesio June 08‚ 2011 Facts: Jimmy Maddox was convicted of rape in a Georgia state court and sentenced to life imprisonment. Having unsuccessfully pursued his direct appeal and the state post-conviction remedy‚ Maddox filed a federal habeas corpus petition alleging prosecutorial suppression of exculpatory evidence in violation
Premium Supreme Court of the United States Habeas corpus United States
Case 1 Case 2 Case 3 Court and Year Full High Court 2007 District Court of Queensland 2010 New South Wales Court of Appeal 2011 Relevant Facts Home purchased at $250000 with mortgage payment of $200000 Ms Clayton unable to keep up with payments After substantial period of default‚ banks sells sold property at auction for $150000. After deduction of sale‚ Bank seeks payment of the guarantor Ms Clayton claim guarantee not enforceable on her because of misunderstanding Ms Clayton alleges
Premium Law Real estate Jury
Page 1 1 of 3 DOCUMENTS M.A. MORTENSON COMPANY‚ INC.‚ Petitioner‚ v. TIMBERLINE SOFTWARE CORPORATION and SOFTWORKS DATA SYSTEMS‚ INC.‚ Respondents. No. 67796--4 SUPREME COURT OF WASHINGTON 140 Wn.2d 568; 998 P.2d 305; 2000 Wash. LEXIS 287; CCH Prod. Liab. Rep. P15‚893; 41 U.C.C. Rep. Serv. 2d (Callaghan) 357 October 26‚ 1999‚ Oral Argument Date May 4‚ 2000‚ Filed PRIOR HISTORY: [***1] Appeal from Superior Court‚ King County. 95--2--31991--2. Honorable Phillip Hubbard‚ Judge. DISPOSITION: Court
Premium United States Appeal Supreme Court of the United States