(California Court of Appeal) - Held that a board member of a nonprofit corporation was not entitled to a preliminary injunction barring her from being removed from the board. Reversed a preliminary injunction, in this case involving a nonprofit that operates public radio stations.

(United States Second Circuit) - Affirming the dismissal for failure to state a claim allegations of First Amendment violations by the City of New York, but reversing as to Manhattan Community Access Corporation and its employees because public access TV channels are a public forum and the corporation and its employees were state actors when they fired workers who produced segments critical of the corporation.

(United States Supreme Court) - Held that the Tennessee Valley Authority is subject to suits challenging any of its commercial activities, just as if it were a private corporation supplying electricity. The TVA insisted that, as a government-owned corporation, it has sovereign immunity from all tort suits arising from its performance of so-called discretionary functions. However, the U.S. Supreme Court disagreed in a unanimous opinion delivered by Justice Kagan.

(United States Supreme Court) - On a question of civil procedure, held that a third-party counterclaim defendant -- that is, a party brought into a lawsuit through a counterclaim filed by the original defendant -- may not remove a class-action counterclaim from state court to federal court. Justice Thomas, joined by the four liberal justices, delivered the opinion of a 5-4 Court in this debt collection lawsuit.

(United States Supreme Court) - Held that a private entity operating public access cable TV channels was not subject to First Amendment constraints on its editorial discretion. The producers of a controversial documentary film contended that the nonprofit corporation running the public access channels was a state actor because it was exercising a function traditionally exclusively reserved to the State, and therefore was subject to suit for violating their free speech rights. However, the U.S. Supreme Court disagreed. Justice Kavanaugh delivered the opinion of the 5-4 Court.

(United States Supreme Court) - Addressed whether the Telephone Consumer Protection Act prohibits unsolicited fax advertisements that promote free goods, such as no-cost magazine subscriptions and catalogs. The specific issue here had to do with whether the district court was required to adopt the Federal Communications Commission's interpretation of the statute. The U.S. Supreme Court stated that it found the question difficult to answer, and remanded with directions for the lower courts to resolve two preliminary issues. Justice Breyer delivered the Court's opinion.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - Vacated and complaint dismissed. Plaintiff sought declaratory judgment against Defendant, Homeland Security, claiming that DHS improperly denied application for legal permanent resident. Appellate court held that Plaintiff failed to state a legally cognizable claim.

#architektura #architekt #dom #design

#architektura #architekt #dom #design

#architektura #architekt #dom #design

Aside from a few wild guesses, Izuku had no idea how this had happened. But here he was, about to bear All Might's child, and all he could think to blame it on was a jar of rice.

RT @antimega: At @GDSTeam we’re running a number of online events for Global Accessibility Awareness Day on 21 May - please join us! #accessibility #AccessibilityRegulations

via Criticidades https://ift.tt/1RabwUr

Almost all of the world's cruise ships have formed ghost fleets with their crews trapped aboard

This note examines the published data protection impact assessment (DPIA) released by NHSX in relation to their contact tracing/proximity tracing app. It highlights a range of significant issues which leave the app falling short of data protection legislation. It does this in order so that these issues can be remedied before the next DPIA is published.

Feb 2020 article "...Wright, Bradfield, & Cairns (2013) noted a methodological separation of the intuitive logics approach popularized by Royal Dutch Shell (Wack, 1985a, 1985b) from firm‐level strategy concepts like business models (Zott, Amit, & Massa, 2011), competitive positioning (Porter, 1985), and resource capabilities (Barney, 1991)... The weakening of the connection, related to both the use of scenario planning and the research into it, is the historical connection to strategy process research."

VS Code, an application that is written in JS and runs in a browser, now runs in a browser

I can’t stop laughing at this.

Democrat and former presidential candidate Mayor Bill de Blasio "said the police had used enforcement authority properly," @nytimes reports:

Who framed Roger Rabbit? Talking about Software Development in companies is about using frames. The prevalent frame is the that of the 'Backlog'. Thinking in this frame defines success as finishing the backlog. The pressure of throughput leads to engineering cutting corners and makes developers unhappy. Thinking in an 'Impact' frame leads to more successful company and happier developers. Stephan Schmidt

"I left work and I felt so deflated," one doctor said about an effort to counter misinformation he saw on Facebook. "I let it get to me."Breaking News EmailsGet breaking news alerts and special reports. The news and stories that matter, delivered weekday mornings.

Six weeks ago, Ahmaud Arbery went out and never came home. Gregory and Travis McMichael, who saw Arbery running through their neighborhood just outside of Brunswick, Georgia, and who told authorities they thought he was a burglary suspect, armed themselves, pursued Arbery, and then shot him dead.

sparks - A typeface for creating sparklines in text without code.

(United States Federal Circuit) - Affirmed the bench trial finding that valid patents still existed in a longstanding pharmaceutical drug called Aveed after defendant Custopharm was sued for patent infringement by Endo Pharmaceuticals and Bayer after seeking FDA approval to produce a generic version of Aveed.

(United States Federal Circuit) - Affirmed a finding of patent claim invalidity involving certain claims related to a drug distribution system for tracking prescriptions of sensitive drugs, such as those with addictive properties. In affirming, the Federal Circuit held that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board did not err and that its determination, on inter partes review, that the patents were invalid was obvious.

(United States Federal Circuit) - Vacated a patent noninfringement judgment based on an erroneous construction of the patent's language. The sole issue on appeal concerned a patent pertaining to energy efficient lighting apparatuses and what precisely was meant by the words attachment surface. Because the district court had adopted an erroneous construction of those words, the Federal Circuit vacated the judgment of noninfringement and remanded for further proceedings.

(United States Federal Circuit) - Affirmed that tribal sovereign immunity could not be asserted in a patent proceeding. A pharmaceutical company involved in a dispute over an eye medication patent transferred the title of its patent to a Native American tribe, which then moved to terminate the patent proceeding on the basis of sovereign immunity. Concluding that tribal sovereign immunity cannot be asserted in inter partes review, the Federal Circuit affirmed the denial of the Tribe's motion to terminate the proceeding.

(United States Federal Circuit) - Affirmed that a patent for a water recreational board was invalid as obvious. On appeal, the patent holder argued that its invention of a recreational board that would help athletically challenged people ride on the water was not obvious. In a 2-1 decision, the Federal Circuit disagreed and affirmed the district court decision granting summary judgment to the defendant in this patent infringement action.

(United States Federal Circuit) - Affirmed that a pharmaceutical company's patent claims in a multiple sclerosis drug were invalid for obviousness. Several competitors seeking to market a generic version of the same drug raised the issue of obviousness when the company sued them for infringement. In a 2-1 decision, the Federal Circuit affirmed that the patent claims in question were invalid.

(United States Federal Circuit) - Reversed a judgment that a patent for a pharmaceutical product was invalid on the ground of obviousness. The Federal Circuit concluded that obviousness was not proved by clear and convincing evidence.

(WV Supreme Court of Appeals) - No. 18-0653