(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.

(California Court of Appeal) - In a case concerning the ownership of property that belonged to the Dioceses before the disaffiliation of a majority of members from the Episcopal Church in the U.S., the trial court's judgment in favor of plaintiffs is affirmed where, although the trial court made certain errors, applying neutral principles of law, the property belongs to plaintiffs.

(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 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 Ninth Circuit) - In a dispute over the control of two nonprofit entities associated with the Sikh Dharma religious community, the district court's dismissal of the claims, as foreclosed by the Free Exercise and Establishment Clauses of the First Amendment, is vacated where: 1) based only on the pleadings, the claims were not barred by the First Amendment's ministerial exception; and 2) the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine did not apply because the claims could be resolved by application of neutral principles of law without encroaching on religious organizations' right of autonomy in matters of religious doctrine and administration.

(California Court of Appeal) - In an action brought by a member of a nonprofit mutual benefit corporation to inspect the corporation's membership list, and other books and records, the trial court's denial of the plaintiff's petition for writ of mandate to compel inspection, on grounds that the member sought the inspection for an improper purpose, unrelated to his interest as a member of the corporation, and findings that the corporation did not timely challenge the request for the membership list as required by statute, and therefore ordered the list disclosed, is affirmed in part and reversed in part where: 1) substantial evidence supports the trial court’s finding that the member sought the information for an improper purpose; and 2) the corporation's challenge to disclosing the membership list was not barred by statute.

(California Court of Appeal) - In a case to decide whether the City and County of San Francisco can compel state universities that operate parking lots in the city to collect city taxes from parking users and remit them to San Francisco, the trial court's denial of the City's petition for writ of mandate is affirmed where the California Constitution's 'home-rule provision' -- which grants charter cities broad powers, including the power to tax -- does not create an exception to the long-recognized doctrine that exempts state entities from local regulation when they are performing governmental functions.

(United States Supreme Court) - In a class action under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) against church-affiliated nonprofits that run hospitals and other healthcare facilities, brought by current and former employees of the hospitals, alleging that the hospitals' pension plans do not fall within ERISA's church-plan exemption because they were not established by a church, the Seventh Circuit's judgment affirming the District Court's decision that a plan must be established by a church to qualify as a church plan, is reversed where a plan maintained by a principal-purpose organization qualifies as a 'church plan,' regardless of who established it.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Upheld the constitutionality of California's requirement that charitable organizations must disclose the names and addresses of certain large contributors. Two nonprofit organizations contended that the disclosure requirement infringed their First Amendment right to free association. Disagreeing, the Ninth Circuit concluded that the disclosure requirement survived exacting constitutional scrutiny because it was substantially related to an important state interest in policing charitable fraud. The panel reversed and remanded for entry of judgment in the state's favor.

(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.

(California Court of Appeal) - Affirmed a $4 million default judgment against the Jehovah's Witness religious organization, in a lawsuit brought on behalf of a child who allegedly was sexually molested by a congregation elder. The default judgment was a sanction for the religious organization's refusal to produce certain documents in discovery.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Reinstated a Catholic elementary school teacher's claim that her employment was terminated based on her disability, in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Held that she did not qualify as a minister for purposes of the First Amendment's ministerial exception to generally applicable employment laws. Reversed a summary judgment ruling and remanded.

(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) - Upheld an Internal Revenue Code provision that excludes housing allowances from ministers' taxable federal income. An advocacy group contended that the tax provision violates the First Amendment's Establishment Clause. Disagreeing, the Seventh Circuit held that the longstanding tax code exemption for religious housing is constitutional, reversing the district court.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Held that an employee of the Salvation Army could not proceed with her claims for retaliation and hostile work environment, because Title VII's religious organization exemption barred the claims. Also, it did not matter here that the Salvation Army had failed to timely raise the defense. Affirmed 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.

(California Court of Appeal) - Revived a lawsuit accusing a board member of a nonprofit organization of self-dealing and other misconduct. Held that the plaintiff, also a board member, had legal standing even though the board of directors subsequently removed her from the board. Reversed a dismissal.

(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.

(California Court of Appeal) - Held that a woman who made a sizeable donation to a San Diego spiritual group had no right to obtain her money back. Affirmed a summary adjudication in relevant part, rejecting her fraud and other claims.

(United States Third Circuit) - In an appeal of a District Court order unsealing certain documents that reveal damaging admissions he made in a 2005 deposition regarding his sexual behavior, the District Court's order is vacated but the appeal is dismissed where resealing the documents would not provide defendant with any meaningful relief, and thus this appeal is moot.

(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.

(California Court of Appeal) - In a dispute arising out of a written agreement between a content producer-plaintiff and a television station-defendant, involving website material plaintiff created that was to be distributed to the websites of certain television stations affiliated with defendant in other cities, alleging the common law tort of misappropriation of name and likeness, defendant's petition for writ of mandate is granted where the trial court erred in denying summary judgment to defendant because based on the broad consent in the agreement, plaintiffs cannot prove lack of consent to the manner in which defendant used plaintiff's material.

(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) - the Tax Court's grant of summary judgment for the IRS and finding petitioner liable for federal income tax deficiencies for the taxable years 2003 and 2004 is affirmed where the Tax Court correctly applied a 'single entity' approach to reduce the consolidated net operating loss of Marvel Entertainment, LLC's consolidated group by its previously excluded cancellation of debt income.

(United States First Circuit) - In a suit alleging contract and intellectual property claims against a variety of companies affiliated with Sony Music Entertainment, concerning an original song and music video that plaintiff submitted to Sony as part of a songwriting contest sponsored by Sony, the District Court's dismissal of all claims and order compelling arbitration are affirmed where: 1) the claims were subject to mandatory arbitration under the Federal Arbitration Act; and 2) plaintiff failed to allege facts sufficient to support his claims under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6).

(United States Federal Circuit) - In an infringement action involving patents that relate to automating part of a preexisting 3-D animation method, the District Court's grant of judgment on the pleadings under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(c) that the asserted claims of the patent are invalid, is reversed where the ordered combination of claimed steps, using unconventional rules that relate sub-sequences of phonemes, timings, and morph weight sets, is not directed to an abstract idea and is therefore patent-eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. section 101.

(United States Second Circuit) - In a securities fraud case arising from the same set of underlying facts as those in re Vivendi S.A. Securities Litigation, brought by so-called 'value investors' against a French entertainment company, the District Court's judgment for defendant is affirmed where defendants had rebutted the fraud‐on‐the‐market presumption of reliance invoked by the Plaintiffs as part of their claim under section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. section 78j(b).

(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 Second Circuit) - In a suit alleging direct and contributory copyright infringement by defendant Barnesandnoble.com, which, under license, uploads books and book samples to digital 'lockers' that the defendant maintains for its individual customers, and when the license granted by plaintiff was terminated, defendant did not delete a sample of plaintiff's book, the District Court's dismissal of the complaint at summary judgment is affirmed where the allegedly infringing conduct was authorized by the contracts at issue.

(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 for trademark infringement and unfair competition brought under the Lanham Act by a producer of karaoke music tracks, alleging that the defendants performed karaoke shows using unauthorized 'media-shifted' files that had been copied onto computer hard drives from the compact discs released by the plaintiff, the district court's dismissal is affirmed where plaintiff did not state a claim under the Lanham Act because there was no likelihood of consumer confusion about the origin of a good properly cognizable in a claim of trademark infringement.

(California Court of Appeal) - In an action brought by an actor who was employed as an extra in a movie entitled, A Haunted House 2, alleging that he was the victim of racial harassment because during his one day of work on the movie he was compared to a Black cartoon character and called a racial slur, the trial court's grant of defendant's anti-SLAPP motion to strike, Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16, is affirmed where plaintiff's claims arose from defendant's constitutional right of free speech because the core injury-producing conduct arose out of the creation of the movie and its promotion over the Internet.

(United States Second Circuit) - In a copyright infringement suit brought by the company that owns the recordings of the Turtles, a well-known rock band with a string of hits in the 1960s, on behalf of itself and a class of owners of pre-1972 recordings against largest radio and internet-radio broadcaster in the U.S., the district court's denial of defendant's motions for summary judgment and reconsideration is reversed where, in response to questions certified to the New York Court of Appeals, New York common law does not recognize a right of public performance for creators of pre-1972 sound recordings.

(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.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - In an action in which a street performer-plaintiff and her friend, both dressed in 'sexy cop' costumes, posed with pedestrians on the Las Vegas Strip and accepted tips in exchange for photos, alleging plaintiff was unlawfully arrested for conducting business without a license, in violation of her First Amendment rights, the district court's summary judgment in favor of Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department officers is reversed in part where: 1) the full First Amendment protections accorded to plaintiff's own activities did not lapse because of what her friend said or did without plaintiff's direct participation; and 2) plaintiff associated with her friend only for expressive activity protected under Berger v. City of Seattle, 569 F. 3d 1029 (9th Cir. 2009) (en banc), and the district court erred by deciding that the officers had probable cause to arrest plaintiff despite the First Amendment protections afforded to her expressive association.

(United States Supreme Court) - In a trademark case in which the lead singer of the rock group 'The Slants' chose this moniker in order to 'reclaim' the term and drain its denigrating force as a derogatory term for Asian persons, and then sought federal registration of the mark 'THE SLANTS,' the en banc Federal Circuit's judgment overruling The Patent and Trademark Office (PTO)'s denial of the application under the Lanham Act's disparagement clause, is affirmed where: 1) the disparagement clause applies to marks that disparage the members of a racial or ethnic group; and 2) the disparagement clause violates the First Amendment's Free Speech Clause.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - In the appeal of a breach of contract and copyright infringement case involving the movie 'The Purge,' the district court's denial of defendant's anti-SLAPP motion to strike a state law claim for breach of implied-in-fact contract, is affirmed where the breach of contract claim did not arise from an act in furtherance of the right of free speech since the claim was based on defendants' failure to pay for the plaintiff's idea, not the creation, production, distribution, or content of the films.

(Supreme Court of California) - Reversing the judgment of the Court of Appeal insofar as it determined that a 2011 analysis of greenhouse gas emission impacts prepared as part of a project for the development of transportation infrastructure in San Diego was inadequate and required revision.

(United States Third Circuit) - Reversing a district court determination that a man complaining that the NFL's policies relating to the sale of SuperBowl tickets violated New Jersey law lacked subject matter jurisdiction and deferring action on the merits of the appeal pending a decision by the Supreme Court of New Jersey on a petition for certification of questions of state law, retaining jurisdiction over the appeal pending resolution of the certification.

(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 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) - Affirmed in part, reversed in part, vacated, and remanded for retrial. Defendant killed a grizzly bear that was harassing his horses in Montana and was convicted of violating the Endangered Species Act. The 9th Circuit held that the trial court erred in applying an objectively reasonable standard when it should have applied a subjective belief standard as to the defendant's claim of self-defense.

(United States Second Circuit) - Reversed the denial of a post-trial JMOL motion. In overturning a $1.3 million jury verdict, the appeals court held that a business owner failed to prove that two prosecutors and an investigator in the Nassau County District Attorney's Office tortiously interfered with his contracts in violation of New York law when they conducted a fraud investigation against a media company he owned but then did not ultimately file charges against him. The appeals court concluded that there was no evidence that anyone stopped performing under a specific contract because of anything said or done by the defendants.