(California Court of Appeal) - Affirmed rulings in a custody dispute between parents of a toddler who was born with heroin in her system.

(California Court of Appeal) - In a marital dissolution case, held that a particular piece of real estate was community property. Reversed the judgment below.

(United States Second Circuit) - Held that four divorced men could not proceed with their lawsuit accusing Israeli government officials and others of misconduct in connection with their divorce proceedings and child support orders. Affirmed a dismissal based partly on lack of subject matter jurisdiction and partly on failure to state a claim.

(California Court of Appeal) - Held that a domestic violence restraining order could not constitutionally prohibit a husband from posting anything about his divorce case on Facebook. Directed that the provision be stricken from the restraining order as an invalid restraint on speech.

(United States Second Circuit) - Finding that a plaintiff had standing to sue in seeking adequate payment for foster parents and that plaintiff had a right to adequate payments.

(Supreme Court of California) - Affirmed. The Appeals court held that the current policy of the California Department of Social Services treating court-ordered child support as income and using the same funds twice as income for both the paying household and the receiving household does not violate the Welfare and Institutions Code section 11005.5.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - In a 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 dispute involving the standing of a tax exempt claimant to intervene in a challenge to an unrelated action on the constitutionality of claimed exemptions, IRC sections 107 and 265(a)(6), judgment of the district court denying intervention is affirmed in part and vacated in part because motion to intervene as a matter of right is thwarted by the presumption of adequate representation, where the district court erred in apply an incorrect rule on the issue of permissive intervention.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - In an action brought under 45 U.S.C. section 1983, seeking to enjoin the California Attorney General from requiring plaintiff to disclose the names and contributions of the it's "significant donors" on Internal Revenue Form 990 Schedule B, which plaintiff must file with the state in order to maintain its registered status with the Registry of Charitable Trusts, the district court's denial of a preliminary injunction is affirmed where: 1) the disclosure requirement did not injure plaintiff's exercise of the First Amendment rights to freedom of association; and 2) the disclosure requirement is not preempted by Congress for privacy purposes under 26 U.S.C. section 6104, part of the Pension Protection Act of 2006.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - In a putative class action against an employer, alleging it has not maintained its pension plan in compliance with the the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), 29 U.S.C. section 1001 et seq., the District Court's partial summary judgment in favor of plaintiff is affirmed where pension plan was subject to the requirements of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act and did not qualify for ERISA’s church-plan exemption.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - In a motion for a preliminary injunction sought by three religiously-affiliated non-profit corporations to prevent the enforcement of the California Reproductive Freedom, Accountability, Comprehensive Care, and Transparency Act, the district court's denial of the motion is affirmed where: 1) plaintiff's are not entitled to a preliminary injunction based on their free exercise claims; 2) the Act is a neutral lawof general applicability, which survived rational basis review; and 3) plaintiffs were unable to demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits of their First Amendment claims.

(California Court of Appeal) - Affirmed the denial of a Roman Catholic Diocese's petition to remove an individual from her position as trustee of an individual's trust and for damages. Held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in excusing the trustee from liability for actions she took reasonably and in good faith.

(United States Seventh Circuit) - Revived a church's claim that a city's zoning code violated federal and state statutes protecting religious freedom by treating religious uses of property on unequal terms with analogous secular uses and unreasonably limiting where religious organizations may locate in the city. Reversed a grant of summary judgment and remanded.

(United States Seventh Circuit) - Revived a parochial school's claim that its students were being denied state‐funded bus transportation equivalent to public-school students, contrary to Wisconsin law and the Equal Protection Clause. Reversed summary judgment in relevant part and remanded.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - In a copyright action, arising from defendant's infringement of plaintiff's photos of the hip hop group Run-DMC for use on t-shirts and a calendar, the district court's grant of summary judgment to defendant Live Nation Merchandise is reversed where: 1) there is a triable issue of fact as to whether defendant's infringement was willful; and 2) plaintiff could prevail upon a showing that defendant knew that copyright management information had been removed from the photos.

(United States Second Circuit) - In an antitrust action, alleging that Time Warner's requiring consumers to lease cable boxes in order to receive a package of television channels violates the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C., section 1, the district court's dismissal is affirmed where plaintiff's third amended complaint fails to: 1) plausibly allege that the cable boxes are a separate product from the premium cable channels; and 2) plausibly allege defendant's market power in the particular product and geographic markets defined in the complaint.

(United States Second Circuit) - In a class action securities brought by investors in a French entertainment company, alleging defendant's persistently optimistic representations during the period from October 30, 2000 to August 14, 2002, constituted securities fraud under section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. section 78j(b), as well as the Securities Exchange Commission's Rule 10b–5 promulgated thereunder, 17 C.F.R. section 240.10b-5, the District Court's entry of the jury verdict finding defendant liable for fraud under under section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 is affirmed where: 1) plaintiffs relied on specifically identified false or misleading statements; 2) defendant's claim that certain statements constituted non‐actionable statements of opinion is not preserved for appellate review; 3) defendant's claims that certain statements constituted non‐actionable puffery and that others fall under the Private Securities Law Reform Act's (PSLRA) safe harbor provision for 'forward‐looking statements,' 15 U.S.C. section 78u‐5(c), is without merit; 4) evidence was sufficient to support the jury's verdict; and 5) there was no abuse of discretion in admitting expert testimony. As to plaintiff's cross appeal: 1) the court did not abuse it's discretion in excluding certain foreign shareholders from the class; and 2) did not err in dismissing claims by American purchasers of ordinary shares under Morrison v. Nat'l Austl Bank Ltd., 561 U.S. 247 (2010)

(United States Fourth Circuit) - Affirming the district court's rejection of First Amendment violation claims brought by an exotic dancing venue complaining that a city regulates sexually oriented businesses differently than it does mainstream performances such as ballets and concerts, that the law violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment by barring 18 to 21 year olds from owning sexually oriented businesses, but finding that the district court erred in rejecting a claim that the denial provisions of the licensing regulation are an unconstitutional prior restraint, striking this provision from the Ordinance and remanding to consider its severability.

(California Court of Appeal) - Reversing a trial court judgment relating to a motion picture company's contract to pay Bruce Willis to perform in a movie because the owner of the company was joined to arbitration despite his not having been named personally in the arbitration agreement relating to the never-produced movie Wake.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Granted a new trial in a copyright case involving a claim that Led Zeppelin copied key portions of its hit Stairway to Heaven from a song written by a musician named Randy Wolfe. Held that several jury instructions were erroneous and prejudicial, including the instructions on originality, and thus vacated the jury's verdict of no infringement.

(United States Second Circuit) - Held that a copyright ownership claim was timely filed. The statute of limitations was not triggered by the defendants' act of registering their competing claim of ownership in the Copyright Office. Denied a petition for rehearing, in a dispute over ownership of renewal term copyrights in certain musical compositions and sound records.

(United States Federal Circuit) - In a vineyard-plaintiff's appeal of a decision of the United States Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) Trademark Trial and Appeal Board dismissing its opposition to an application filed by defendant to register a MAYARI mark for use on wine, the Board's decision is affirmed where substantial evidence supports the Board's finding that plaintiff's registered mark MAYA and defendant's applied-for mark MAYARI are sufficiently dissimilar.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - In an action under the Lanham Act, seeking cancellation of the GOOGLE trademark on the ground that it is generic, the district court's summary judgment in favor of defendant Google is affirmed where: 1) a claim of genericness or 'genericide,' where the public appropriates a trademark and uses it as a generic name for particular types of goods or services irrespective of its source, must be made with regard to a particular type of good or service; 2) the district court thus correctly focused on internet search engines rather than the 'act' of searching the internet; and 3) the verb use of the word 'google' to mean 'search the internet,' as opposed to adjective use, did not automatically constitute generic use.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Affirming that a 1999 amendment to trademark statutes did not eliminate the plaintiff's requirement that they establish wilfulness to justify the award of defendant's profits in a trademark infringement case, but reversing the holding that the defendant's mark was not likely to cause confusion and remanding for inquiry into intent.

(United States Federal Circuit) - Affirming the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board's affirmation of a US Patent and Trademark Office attorney's refusal to register the appellant's trademark on the ground of the likelihood of confusion with registered marks because the Board did not err in its determination of the likelihood of confusion.

(United States First Circuit) - Held that the exercise of specific personal jurisdiction over a German company in a trademark infringement action did not violate due process. The German company, which operated an English-language website, argued that it lacked the requisite minimum contacts with the United States. Disagreeing, the First Circuit affirmed the district court's ruling that the exercise of personal jurisdiction was constitutional.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Affirmed the dismissal of a trademark infringement lawsuit brought by a financial services company, holding that the use of its trademarks by a publishing company constituted nominative fair use.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - Held that the First Amendment's commercial speech protections entitled a company to operate automotive service centers under the name "Tire Engineers," even though a state board that licenses engineers objected to the use of the profession's occupational title. Reversed and rendered summary judgment in favor of the company, in this declaratory judgment action.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - Remanded for recalculation of an attorney fee award in a trademark infringement action, in which one nonprofit organization accused another of stealing its logo. Both organizations endorse political candidates.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - In a contractual dispute over ownership of a trademark in a restaurant name, affirmed a bench trial decision in part and reversed it in part.

(United States Supreme Court) - This case involved the State of Washington's tax on fuel importers who travel by public highway. The Yakama Nation contended that its 1855 treaty with the United States forbids that tax from being imposed upon fuel importers who are tribal members. The U.S. Supreme Court agreed with the tribe. Justice Breyer's plurality opinion was joined by only two other justices. Justices Gorsuch and Ginsburg concurred in the judgment.

(United States Supreme Court) - Revived a maritime tort lawsuit against manufacturers of turbines and other equipment for three Navy ships. Family members of two deceased Navy veterans claimed that the manufacturer violated a duty to warn sailors of the health risks faced from asbestos fibers released into the air. The U.S. Supreme Court found merit in the plaintiffs' contentions. Justice Kavanaugh delivered the opinion for a 6-3 majority, clarifying the circumstances in which a duty to warn exists in the maritime context.

(United States Supreme Court) - Addressed a question concerning a method of serving civil process on a foreign state. The Republic of Sudan argued that a mailing must be sent directly to the foreign minister's office in the foreign state, not to the foreign state's U.S. embassy. The U.S. Supreme Court agreed with Sudan's argument in an 8-1 decision. Justice Alito delivered the Court's opinion, in this case arising out of the 2000 bombing of the Navy vessel USS Cole.

(United States Supreme Court) - Held that a private citizen cannot sue one State in the courts of another. Overruled Nevada v. Hall, 440 U.S. 410 (1979), which had held that a State may grant or deny its sister States sovereign immunity as it chooses. The plaintiff here sought to bring a tort suit against a California state agency in Nevada state court. The U.S. Supreme Court concluded that the Constitution barred the suit. Justice Thomas delivered the opinion of the 5-4 Court.

(United States Supreme Court) - Held that the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services neglected its statutory notice-and-comment obligations when it revealed a new policy that dramatically -- and retroactively -- reduced Medicare payments to hospitals serving low-income patients. Concluded that the new policy must be vacated. Justice Gorsuch delivered the opinion of the 7-1 Court (Justice Kavanaugh did not participate).

(United States Supreme Court) - Addressed what law applies on the Outer Continental Shelf, holding that California wage-and-hour law was inapplicable to a worker on an offshore drilling platform. Under the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act, if federal law addresses the relevant issue, state law is not adopted as surrogate federal law. Justice Thomas delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court.

(United States Supreme Court) - Clarified the limits of a State's power to tax a trust. Struck down a North Carolina requirement that a trust must pay income tax to the State whenever the trust's beneficiaries live in the State -- regardless of whether the beneficiaries have received, can demand, or will ever receive a distribution of trust income. Justice Sotomayor delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court, in this due process challenge brought by a family trust.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - Held that the statute of limitations expired on a woman's action seeking the issuance of a certificate of citizenship. The five-year clock began running in 2008 when her first request for citizenship was denied. She was born in Mexico to an American father and a Mexican mother.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - Deny petition for review. Plaintiff appealed dismissal of application for asylum and withholding of removal. Petition for stay of removal was granted, but denied the award of attorney fees. Plaintiff appealed the denial of attorney fees. Appeals court ruled that Plaintiff was not entitled to attorney fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act because the government’s actions were substantially justified.

#architektura #architekt #dom #design

#architektura #architekt #dom #design

#architektura #architekt #dom #design

Najnowsze wiadomości - TVN24 Little Richard, znany między innymi z przeboju "Tutti Frutti", zmarł w sobotę w wieku 87 lat - poinformował na swojej stronie internetowej magazyn "Rolling Stone". Piosenkarz, pianista i pastor jest uważany za jednego z pionierów rock and rolla. https://ift.tt/37OsBj9

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

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

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."

(NY Court of Appeals) - No. 26

DAY 1 に申し込んでみた✋