(United States Ninth Circuit) - In a dispute involving the scope of Treasury Regulation section 25.2522(c)-3(b)(1) and arising from the transfer of membership units in an LLC partly as a gift and partly by sale to two trusts with simultaneous gifts of LLC units to two charitable foundations under a reallocation clause, judgment of the trial court is affirmed where Section 25.2522(c)-3(b)(1), upon trigger of the reallocation clause, does not bar a charitable deduction equal to the value of the additional units the foundations will receive.

(United States Fourth Circuit) - In an interlocutory appeal from a judgment of the district court denying defendant's motion for summary judgment in a Title VII complaint alleging religious discrimination, judgment is reversed where the plain language of 42 U.S.C. section 2000e-1(a) bars plaintiff's claims.

(Court of Appeals of New York) - In a tax-exempt charitable organization's action against a school district seeking to recoup erroneously paid taxes, summary judgment in favor of the school district is affirmed, where: 1) the school district was entitled to rely on the one-year statute of limitations in Education Law section 3813(2-b) rather than the general six-year period for contract actions; and 2) the taxpayer's cause of action for money had and received accrued when it paid the taxes, which was more than one year before it filed suit.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - In a challenge to federal statutory restrictions on certain types of advertising by public broadcast TV stations, the district court's grant of summary judgment to the FCC is: 1) affirmed in part, where 47 U.S.C. section 399b(a)(1), restricting paid advertisements for goods and services on behalf of for-profit corporations, was not an unconstitutional speech restriction under the intermediate scrutiny standard; 2) reversed in part, where sections 399b(a)(2) and (3), restricting public-issue advertisements and political advertisements, were unconstitutional speech restrictions under intermediate scrutiny, as there was no evidence of harm to a substantial governmental interest.

(California Court of Appeal) - In a trespass suit brought by a grocery store against a church soliciting donations in front of the store, summary judgment in favor of the store is affirmed, where: 1) the church's solicitation was not protected by In re Lane (1969) 71 Cal.2d 872, because there was no relation between the church's expressive activities and the store's location; and 2) the church did not contend or present evidence to establish that the store or the sidewalk in front was a public forum within the meaning of Robins v. Pruneyard Shopping Center (1979) 23 Cal.3d 899.

(United States Fourth Circuit) - In an action by a Virginia non-profit corporation organized under section 527 of the Internal Revenue Code to provide "accurate and truthful information about the public policy positions of Senator Barack Obama," contending that it was "chilled" from posting information about then-Senator Obama because of the vagueness of a Commission regulation, 11 C.F.R. section 100.22(b), and a Commission policy, published at 72 Fed. Reg. 5595 (Feb. 7, 2007), relating to whether plaintiff has to make disclosures or is a "political committee" (PAC), the District Court's judgment is affirmed where: 1) neither the regulation nor policy are unconstitutionally broad and vague in violation of the First and Fifth Amendments; and 2) it correctly applied the "exacting scrutiny" standard applicable to disclosure provisions.

(United States First Circuit) - In a dispute between two monasteries for copyright infringement of a religious text, district court's judgment in favor of the plaintiff is affirmed, as the plaintiff has established both elements of an infringement claim of actual copying and actionable copying, and all of the defenses set forth by the defendant are without merit.

(California Court of Appeal) - In an unlawful detainer action between two non-profit religious organizations, trial court's order compelling defendant's pastor, who was not a party to the action, to sign the written settlement agreement in his individual capacity, is reversed and remanded where: 1) the parties' oral settlement agreement did not require the pastor to release any personal claims against the plaintiff or sign a written agreement purportedly conforming to the oral settlement in his individual capacity; and 2) the trial court lacked jurisdiction over the pastor.

(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 an action brought by two nonprofit organizations challenging the California Attorney General's collection of IRS Form 990 Schedule B forms, containing identifying information for their major donors, under California's Supervision of Trustees and Fundraisers for Charitable Purposes Act, Cal. Gov't Code section 12584, the district court's preliminary injunction for plaintiffs is modified to prohibit making the information public but permit defendant to keep collecting the data for enforcement

(California Court of Appeal) - In a property tax refund action based on the welfare exemption set forth in Revenue and Taxation Code section 214, the trial court's judgment in favor of plaintiff is affirmed where: 1) the State Board of Equalization's (SBE) interpretation of section 214 was clearly erroneous; 2) the SBE's advisory rule regarding who must file a welfare exemption is not binding and therefore should not be given independent legal effect; and 3) the County failed to establish that the trial court should have denied a tax refund because plaintiff's claims were tardy and its claim forms were incomplete.

(United States First Circuit) - In an appeal of a tax court decision affirming a determination by the Commissioner of the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) that he owed $3.790 million in income taxes and penalties on $5.65 million in bank deposits petitioner made and interest earned from 1995 to 2002, the tax court determination is affirmed over petitioner's contentions that these deposits were not his taxable personal income but the program income of a social welfare organization that had tax-exempt status pursuant to section 501(c)(4) of the Internal Revenue Code, 26 U.S.C. section 501(c), where an organization distinct from petitioner did not exist during the applicable tax years.

(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.

(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.

(California Court of Appeal) - Revived the California Labor Commissioner's lawsuit alleging that a preschool operated by a religious congregation violated wage-hour laws. Held that the preschool teachers were not considered ministers and, therefore, were not covered by a constitutional doctrine that prevents ministers from bringing certain types of claims against their employers. Reversed a summary judgment ruling.

(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 Ninth Circuit) - In a copyright infringement action, the district court's grant of summary judgment to defendants is affirmed where plaintiff failed to put forth admissible evidence establishing copyright infringement against recording artist Jessie J for allegedly stealing a two-measure vocal melody from plaintiff's song 'Bright Red Chords' for use in her hit song 'Domino.'

(United States Second Circuit) - In an action for copyright infringement brought by successors-in-interest of the estates of William 'Bud' Abbott and Lou Costello against the author and producers of the play The Hand of God, the District Court's judgment in favor of defendants is affirmed where, although defendants' verbatim incorporation of more than a minute of the iconic Who's on First? comedy routine in their commercial production was not a fair use of the material, plaintiffs fail plausibly to allege a valid copyright interest.

(United States Second Circuit) - In a copyright infringement action brought by record companies and music publishers against internet music services that allowed users to search for free music, dealing with the requirement of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) safe harbor that an internet service provider adopt and reasonably implement a policy to terminate repeat infringers, under 17 U.S.C. section 512, the District Court's grant of partial summary judgment in favor of defendants and decision overturning a jury verdict in favor of plaintiffs is: 1) vacated as to partial summary judgment to the defendants based on the conclusion that defendant qualified for safe harbor protection under the DMCA because the District Court applied too narrow a definition of 'repeat infringer'; 2) reversed as to judgment as a matter of law to the defendants on claims that defendant permitted infringement of plaintiffs' copyrights in pre‐2007 MP3s and Beatles songs because there was sufficient evidence to allow a reasonable jury to conclude that defendant had red‐flag knowledge of, or was willfully blind to, infringing activity involving those categories of protected material; 3) remanded for further proceedings related to claims arising out of the District Court’s grant of partial summary judgment; and 4) affirmed in all other respects.

(California Court of Appeal) - In a former on-air radio personality's action for disability discrimination, wrongful termination and related employment claims, the trial court's grant of summary judgment to employer-defendant is reversed where material issues of fact exist regarding each of plaintiff's claims.

(United States Second Circuit) - In an amended opinion involving a copyright infringement action brought by record companies and music publishers against internet music services that allowed users to search for free music, dealing with the requirement of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) safe harbor that an internet service provider adopt and reasonably implement a policy to terminate repeat infringers, under 17 U.S.C. section 512, the District Court's grant of partial summary judgment in favor of defendants and decision overturning a jury verdict in favor of plaintiffs is: 1) vacated as to partial summary judgment to the defendants based on the conclusion that defendant qualified for safe harbor protection under the DMCA because the District Court applied too narrow a definition of 'repeat infringer'; 2) reversed as to judgment as a matter of law to the defendants on claims that defendant permitted infringement of plaintiffs' copyrights in pre‐2007 MP3s and Beatles songs because there was sufficient evidence to allow a reasonable jury to conclude that defendant had red‐flag knowledge of, or was willfully blind to, infringing activity involving those categories of protected material; 3) remanded for further proceedings related to claims arising out of the District Court’s grant of partial summary judgment; and 4) affirmed in all other respects.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - In a suit brought by a group of broadcast stations and copyright holders against an entity that operates a service that uses antennas to capture over-the-air broadcast programming, much of it copyrighted, and then uses the Internet to retransmit such programming to paying subscribers, all without the consent or authorization of the copyright holders, the district court's partial summary judgment in favor of defendants is reversed where a service that captures copyrighted works broadcast over the air, and then retransmits them to paying subscribers over the Internet without the consent of the copyright holders, is not a 'cable system' eligible for a compulsory license under the Copyright Act.

(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 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.

(California Court of Appeal) - Reversed order denying Defendant’s motion to strike. Plaintiff represented deceased celebrity, Jenni Rivera, and they sought to restrict disclosure by Defendant broadcaster of certain information. Appeals court ruled the First Amendment protected broadcaster’s use of information and reversed trial court order.

(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 Second Circuit) - In a trademark action concerning the mark for Pudgie's pizza chain restaurants, the district court's grant of summary judgment to plaintiffs is affirmed where there is no genuine issue of material fact that defendant Tarntino obtained his federal trademark registration of PUDGIE'S by fraud.

(United States Federal Circuit) - In a petition filed by Adidas, the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board's final judgment cancelling a Church's trademarks for failing to use the marks in commerce before registering them, on the grounds of the Church's de minimus sale of two marked hats to an out-of-state reside, is reversed where: 1) the Lanham Act defines commerce as all activity regulable by Congress; and 2) the Church's sale to an out-of-state resident fell within Congress’s power to regulate under the Commerce Clause.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Affirming the district court's summary judgment in favor of Fox, holding that their use of the name 'Empire' was protected by the First Amendment and therefore was outside of the reach of the Lanham Act and their use of the word as a show title did not infringe on a record label's trademark rights.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - Held that an education services company could not proceed with its Lanham Act lawsuit against a school district for using its marks in the course of operating a summer reading program. Affirmed summary judgment for the school district, finding that the allegedly infringing marks created no likelihood of confusion as a matter of law.

(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 Supreme Court) - Held that a bankrupt company's rejection of a trademark licensing agreement did not deprive its licensee of the rights to use the trademark. The U.S. Supreme Court interpreted Section 365 of the Bankruptcy Code, which enables a debtor to reject any executory contract, meaning a contract that neither party has finished performing. Justice Kagan delivered the opinion of the 8-1 Court.

(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) - Clarified the statute of limitations in qui tam lawsuits. Justice Thomas delivered the Court's unanimous opinion in this case involving the False Claims Act.

(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 a bankrupt company's rejection of a trademark licensing agreement did not deprive its licensee of the rights to use the trademark. The U.S. Supreme Court interpreted Section 365 of the Bankruptcy Code, which enables a debtor to reject any executory contract, meaning a contract that neither party has finished performing. Justice Kagan delivered the opinion of the 8-1 Court.

(United States Supreme Court) - Held that Title VII's charge-filing requirement is not jurisdictional and thus is subject to forfeiture if tardily asserted. The issue involved whether an employer waited too long to dispute that a discrimination plaintiff filed a proper complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission before initiating suit. Justice Ginsburg delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court.

(United States Supreme Court) - Held that a Maryland public monument in the shape of a 32-foot tall Latin cross did not violate the Establishment Clause. A humanist group and others argued that the memorial to soldiers who died in World War I must be removed because of the crucifix shape. The U.S. Supreme Court disagreed. Justice Alito announced the judgment of the Court; however, only certain portions of his opinion received support from a majority of the justices.

(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 Supreme Court) - Addressed whether the State of Mississippi's peremptory strike of a particular black prospective juror was motivated by discriminatory intent. Justice Kavanaugh, who delivered the opinion of the 7-2 Court, explicitly stated that the decision broke no new legal ground but rather simply reinforced the Batson decision, in this case involving a man's sixth murder trial (the other five had ended in hung juries or else been reversed on appeal).

(United States Supreme Court) - Affirmed in part. Defendants were charged with Hobbs Act robbery and also charged under 18 U.S.C. Sec. 924c which authorizes heightened penalties for using a weapon. The Fifth Circuit held that Sec. 924 c 3 B is unconstitutionally vague because it did not provide a reliable way to determine which crimes would qualify for heightened penalties. The US Supreme Court agreed holding that 18 U.S.C. Sec. 924 c 3 B is unconstitutional for vagueness and remanded the case.

(United States Supreme Court) - Vacated and remanded. Plaintiff is a Vietnam veteran who sought disability benefits from the Veterans Administration for post-traumatic stress. The VA eventually granted benefits but only from the motion to re-open his case and not from the date of the original application. Court of Appeals affirmed the ruling citing the deference doctrine. The US Supreme Court vacated the judgment and remanded to have the lower court determine if the deference doctrine applied in this case.

(United States Supreme Court) - Held that when a motorist suspected of drunk driving is unconscious and cannot be given a breath test, the exigent-circumstances doctrine generally permits a blood test without a warrant. Justice Alito announced the judgment of the Court and delivered a plurality opinion, joined by three other justices. Justice Thomas concurring in the judgment.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - Affirmed. Even if an attorney's failure to object to a question about his immigration status during a murder trial had been ineffectual assistance it was not prejudicial.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Affirmed. The district court denied Plaintiff’s national-interest waiver petition for lack of jurisdiction. Affirming, the panel held that 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii) strips the federal courts of jurisdiction to review the denial of a national-interest waiver.

#architektura #architekt #dom #design

#architektura #architekt #dom #design

#architektura #architekt #dom #design