(California Court of Appeal) - Affirmed. Defendant was convicted of first-degree murder on a felony-murder theory. Defendant challenged his convictions in part based on Senate Bill 1437 that amended the felony-murder rule. The appeals court concluded that Defendant was not entitled to relief, but that relief could be available to other defendants by petitioning their trial courts.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - Affirmed. A lawsuit in which Texas complained that EEOC regulations relating to the use of criminal records in hiring was an unlawfully promulgated substantive rule properly dismissed the suit but enjoined EEOC enforcement until the agency complies with notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative Procedure Act.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - Granted. The motion to transfer a lawsuit involving the Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission to the Tenth Circuit was granted because appeals of some agency rulings must be filed in only one court of appeals, typically the DC Circuit.

(California Court of Appeal) - Reversed and remanded. The trial court sustained the Defendant’s demurrer without leave to amend to Plaintiff’s third amended complaint. The appellate court held that Plaintiff made a sufficient showing for leave to amend and directed Plaintiff to amend their complaint consistent with this opinion.

(United States Seventh Circuit) - Affirmed. The FBI's refusal to turn over materials relating to the investigation of a murder on state park land that would violate the personal privacy of third parties and would disclose the identity of a confidential source was proper.

(Supreme Court of California) - Reversed. A dental practice contended that the City of Oroville was liable under an inverse condemnation claim because of damage suffered when raw sewage began overflowing from toilets, sinks, and building drains. The lower court found that the city was liable. The Supreme Court disagreed, stating that the dentist could not prove that the damage was substantially caused by the design, construction or maintenance of the sewer system and that the damage could have been prevented if dentists had installed a legally required backwater valve.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - Partially affirmed, remanded. A Texas ban on public corporations obtaining package store permits did not violate Equal Protection rights, but the district court erred in finding a discriminatory nature and burden imposed by the public corporation ban.

(United States Seventh Circuit) - Affirmed. A local ordinance requiring residential property owners to get a license or hired a licensed contractor to make repairs didn't violate the commerce clause. It didn't distinguish between in and out of state owners and imposed no burden on interstate commerce.

(California Court of Appeal) - Affirmed. Plaintiff was injured in a head-on traffic accident that he alleged was partially caused by a dangerous road condition. The jury found that a dangerous condition existed but it was not a reasonably foreseeable risk that this kind of incident would occur. The appeals court agreed and affirmed the judgment in favor of the Defendant.

(California Court of Appeal) - Affirmed. Plaintiffs are the parents of three girls who were killed by a speeding motorist while they crossed the street in a marked crosswalk. Plaintiff brought an action against the City of Santa Ana claiming that the crosswalk qualified as a dangerous condition on public property. The appeals court did not find a dangerous condition or any peculiar condition that would trigger an obligation by the City.

(California Court of Appeal) - Affirmed. Plaintiff appealed from a pre-election trial court ruling that held that certain initiates were invalid and that the County of San Bernardino was excused from the duty to prepare ballot titles and summaries for them.

(United States DC Circuit) - Vacated and remanded. A pork farmer's suit alleging that the government unlawfully permitted funds for promoting the pork industry to be used for lobbying instead lacked constitutional standing. There was no evidence of misuse of funds that resulted in an injury in fact.

(California Court of Appeal) - Affirmed. The court found that Senate Bill No. 1107 directly conflicts with Political Reform Act of 1974 and does not further the purposes of the Act.

(California Court of Appeal) - Affirmed. Plaintiff sued Defendant for a slip and fall accident in the BART station on the theory that the train operator owed a heightened duty of care under Civil Code section 2100. The trial court dismissed the action on the grounds that Defendant had no liability for accidents that did not occur on the train. The appeals court agreed also holding that section 2100 does not apply to minor commonplace hazards in a train station.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - Affirmed. A conservation and reclamation district regulating groundwater was not subject to the one person, one vote principle of the Equal Protection Clause because they are a special purpose unit of the government. Its apportionment scheme had a rational basis.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Reversed in part, affirmed in part. Plaintiffs have standing for a Freedom of Information Act claim because the removal of compliance and enforcement records from the USDA website harmed them in real-world ways, differently from the injuries sustained by other Americans.

(United States Fourth Circuit) - In a suit brought by a company in the business of selling internet domain names and operates the popular .com and .net top-level domains, alleging its competitor made a series of statements touting the popularity of the .xyz domain and warning of a scarcity of desirable .com domain names which violated the Lanham Act's false advertising provisions, the district court's grant of summary judgment to defendant is affirmed where: 1) as to defendant's self-promoting statements, most of which concern its registration numbers, plaintiff failed to produce the required evidence that it suffered an actual injury as a direct result of defendant’s conduct; and 2) plaintiff did not establish that defendant's statements about the availability of suitable .com domain names were false or misleading statements of fact, as required for Lanham Act liability.

(California Court of Appeal) - In a defamation suit brought by an attorney for Paul Ceglia throughout Ceglia's lawsuit against Facebook, Inc. and its founder, Mark Zuckerberg, the trial court's grant of defendants' motion to strike plaintiff's complaint under the anti-Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation (SLAPP) statute, Code Civ. Proc. section 425.16, is affirmed where: 1) although the statement underlying plaintiff's defamation claim was not subject to the litigation privilege of Civil Code section 47(b), it was subject to the fair and true reporting privilege of Civil Code section 47(d); and, thus 2) plaintiff has no probability of prevailing on his claim.

(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.

(California Court of Appeal) - In a dispute between a employer reviews website, brought by a video gaming company against the website operator, seeking the name of a Jane Doe reviewer who purportedly posted confidential information on the website about the employer in violation of a confidentiality agreement, the website operator's petition for a writ directing the trial court to set aside its order to reveal Doe's real name is granted where the employer failed to make a prima facie showing that Doe's statements disclosed confidential information in violation of the nondisclosure agreement.

(United States Fourth Circuit) - In a class action complaint against the developer of a mobile video game entitled 'Game of War: Fire Age', pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3), asserting a claim under Maryland's gambling loss recovery statute (Loss Recovery Statute), Md. Code Ann., Crim. Law section 12-110, alleging plaintiffs lost money participating in an unlawful 'gaming device,' a component of Game of War that allows players to 'spin' a virtual wheel to win virtual prizes for use within that video game, and seeking recovery of gambling losses that players incurred as a result of 'spinning' the virtual wheel, the district court's dismissal of the complaint is affirmed where the district court correctly concluded that plaintiff did not 'lose money' within the meaning of the Loss Recovery Statute as a result of her participation in the Game of War casino, and thus she failed to state a claim under Maryland's Loss Recovery Statute.

(United States Third Circuit) - In an appeal concerning the Government's ability to compel the decryption of digital devices when the Government seizes those devices pursuant to a valid search warrant, the district court's order, finding John Doe in civil contempt for refusing to comply with an order issued pursuant to the All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. section 1651, which required him to produce several seized devices in a fully unencrypted state, is affirmed over Doe's claims that the court did not have subject matter jurisdiction to issue the order and that the order itself violates his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - In a copyright dispute arising out of photographs posted online on defendant's social media website, the district court's summary judgment that defendant was entitled protected by the safe harbor of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act is reversed where: 1) the safe harbor set forth in 17 U.S.C. section 512(c) would apply if the photographs were posted at the direction of users; 2) defendant posted the photographs after a team of volunteer moderators, led by an employee of the defendant, reviewed and approved them; 3) the common law of agency applied to the defendant's safe harbor defense; and 4) there were genuine factual disputes regarding whether the moderators were the defendant's agents.

(United States First Circuit) - In a suit brought by a solo law practitioner alleging that defendant violated the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA) when it issued a software license key that expired on May 31, 2011, despite the fact that he owned a permanent license to the software at issue, the district court's order adopting the magistrate judge's report and recommendation, denying plaintiff's motion to strike, and granting HSI's motion for summary judgment are affirmed where plaintiff failed to establish the necessary $75,000 amount in controversy.

(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 Fourth Circuit) - In a complaint challenging Upstream surveillance, an electronic surveillance program operated by the National Security Agency pursuant to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), 50 U.S.C. section 1801 et seq., the district court's dismissal of the complaint on grounds that the allegations in the complaint were too speculative to establish Article III standing, under Clapper v. Amnesty International USA, 133 S. Ct. 1138 (2013), is: 1) vacated as to Wikimedia-plaintiff where Clapper's analysis of speculative injury does not control this case, since the central allegations here are not speculative, and plaintiff's allegations are sufficient to survive a facial challenge to standing; and 2) affirmed as to the other plaintiffs because the complaint does not contain enough well-pleaded facts entitled to the presumption of truth to establish their standing.

(United States Supreme Court) - Conviction under a North Carolina law that makes it a felony for a registered sex offender 'to access a commercial social networking Web site where the sex offender knows that the site permits minor children to become members or to create or maintain personal Web pages,' N. C. Gen. Stat. Ann. sections14-202.5(a) and (e), is reversed where the North Carolina statute impermissibly restricts lawful speech in violation of the First Amendment.

(California Court of Appeal) - Reversing a trial court judgment granting writ of mandate and the award of attorney's fees in the case of a real estate salesperson who sued a state agency for publicizing her three misdemeanor convictions because they had no mandatory duty to remove from their website information about a licensee's convictions even if they were eventually dismissed.

(United States Federal Circuit) - In a patent action, construing the term 'pivot table' in relation to two of plaintiff's patents, the district court's 1) claim construction is affirmed as supported by intrinsic evidence; but its 2) indefiniteness determination is reversed because the claims' scopes are reasonably certain.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - In a civil procedure action, arising from a copyright infringement action brought by plaintiffs, American companies in the natural foods industry, against defendant, a UK limited company, after defendant sent an email newsletter containing plaintiffs' logos to 343 email addresses, the district court's dismissal for lack of personal jurisdiction is affirmed where defendant's suit-related conduct did not create a substantial connection with California.

(United States Federal Circuit) - In a patent action relating to a series of patents concerning a system for streaming audio/visual data over a communications system like the internet, the district court's judgment that the asserted patents are ineligible subject matter under 25 U.S.C. section 101 is affirmed where the claims are directed at abstract ideas and contain no additional elements transforming them into patent-eligible applications.

(United States First Circuit) - Affirming summary judgment for the defendant website in a suit claiming it misled users who paid thousands of dollars to reserve a vacation rental property in Belize that apparently didn't exist because they determined that the use of the word guarantee is not a warranty or representation and there was no implication that the website investigated its listings.

(California Court of Appeal) - Affirming the grant of summary judgment to Google executives in a suit brought by three shareholders bringing derivative suits alleging the corporation was harmed by executives who agreed to refrain from actively recruiting employees working for competitors, an arrangement that had been previously abandoned when it gave rise to antitrust issues with the Department of Justice, because the claim was barred by the three-year statute of limitations.

(United States Supreme Court) - Declaring a writ of certiorari petition moot in the case of Microsoft's attempt to avoid providing emails pursuant to a Government warrant investigating the drug trade because a new warrant was issued under a new law that, unlike the old version, permitted the Government to demand emails stored on overseas datacenters under Trump's Clarifying Lawful Overseas Use of Data Act.

(United States Federal Circuit) - Reversing the dismissal of a claim for correction of inventorship and state law claims for lack of jurisdiction in the case of a man claiming to be the sole inventor of a patent for accepting incoming messages over a circuit switched network and transmitting it over a packet switched network because the assignment of the patent did not necessarily preclude the plaintiff from retaining ownership rights over the patent that would support the suit.

(United States First Circuit) - Reversed and remanded in a case involving the enforcement of arbitration clauses in online contracts. Plaintiffs filed suit against defendant alleging violations of Massachusetts consumer-protection statute. Defendant operates a ride-sharing service requiring customers to register using the Uber App. In the app is a page that has a button that will take you to Terms and Conditions, which a user is not required to accept and which contains an agreement to arbitrate any dispute. The district court granted defendant's motion to compel arbitration and dismissed the complaint. In reversing and remanding the First Circuit held that the terms of the agreement were not reasonably communicated to plaintiffs.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Affirmed that a federally recognized Indian tribe was prohibited from operating an internet bingo casino. The State of California and the United States brought this lawsuit contending that the tribe's online bingo game violated the federal Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act. Agreeing with the governmental plaintiffs, the Ninth Circuit affirmed summary judgment against the tribe, holding that while the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act protects gaming activity conducted on Indian lands, it did not permit the tribe's internet bingo game that reached patrons located off Indian lands.

(United States Third Circuit) - Affirmed a brother's and sister's convictions and life sentences for conspiracy to commit interstate stalking and cyberstalking resulting in death. The two siblings were indicted after their father shot and killed the brother's ex-wife and himself. On appeal, the siblings both disputed the constitutionality of the statutes under which they were convicted and also brought numerous other challenges to their convictions and sentences. However, the Third Circuit affirmed the district court's decision in all respects, in a case that the appellate panel said involved numerous issues of first impression.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Held that a constitutional challenge to Washington's cyberstalking law should not have been dismissed on grounds of abstention. Due to certain online postings, the plaintiff was the subject of a state court stalking protection order. He responded by filing an action in federal court seeking a declaration that Washington's cyberstalking law is unconstitutional. Reversing and remanding, the Ninth Circuit held that the district court erred in applying the doctrine to abstain from hearing the case.

(United States Seventh Circuit) - Affirmed the certification of a class action alleging that a software company's downloadable product to improve computer speed and performance was a scam. Held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in certifying a nationwide class and an Illinois subclass of software purchasers.

(California Court of Appeal) - Affirmed that a blogger who moved to quash a subpoena was entitled to an award of attorney fees as the prevailing party, in a case where a crowdfunding campaign originator alleged that he was defamed online. Remanded for recalculation of the fee award.

(California Court of Appeal) - Reversed a $2 million default judgment entered in favor of a plastic surgeon who sued a former patient for allegedly posting an anonymous review online commenting negatively on her plastic surgery experience. Held that faulty service by publication rendered the judgment void on its face.

(California Court of Appeal) - Held that Apple Inc. was not liable for a five-year-old girl's death and injuries to her family members that occurred when a driver using the FaceTime application on his iPhone crashed into her parents' car on a Texas highway. Affirmed dismissal of the complaint, concluding that Apple did not owe a duty of care and that the iPhone's design was not a proximate cause.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - Held that Apple Inc. was not liable for a fatal car crash that happened when a distracted driver looked down to read a text message on her iPhone 5. The suit alleged that the iPhone caused the accident because it had no lockout mechanism. Affirmed dismissal of the complaint, holding that Texas law would not regard a driver's neurobiological response to a smartphone notification as a cause of a car crash.

(California Court of Appeal) - Affirmed a juvenile court's probation condition prohibiting an offender from discussing his case on social media. The teenager, who had been bragging online about being in trouble with the law, argued that the probation condition was overbroad and violated the First Amendment.

(United States Seventh Circuit) - Remanded for further findings as to whether a citizen group and six individuals had legal standing to challenge the constitutionality of Chicago's recently enacted Shared Housing Ordinance, which regulates home-sharing activities, including services offered by companies like Airbnb.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Revived a lawsuit alleging that Domino's Pizza's website and mobile application were not fully accessible to blind or visually impaired persons. The plaintiff, a blind man, alleged that he had no way to order pizzas or other food online. Reversed the dismissal of his claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act and California law.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - In a dispute over ownership of a lucrative YouTube channel, held that the district court had subject-matter jurisdiction and did not err in dismissing a nondiverse partnership as dispensable. Also affirmed a judgment entered on a jury verdict.

(California Court of Appeal) - Held that a political cartoonist and blogger could not proceed with his lawsuit alleging that a newspaper wrongfully terminated his employment and also defamed him by telling its readers that it had serious questions about the accuracy of one of his blog posts. Affirmed the granting of the newspaper's anti-SLAPP motion.

(United States Seventh Circuit) - Held that homeowners could not proceed with a lawsuit against the real estate website Zillow, which allegedly estimated their homes to have inaccurately low values, thus making it difficult for them to obtain favorable sales prices. Affirmed a dismissal of their unfair trade practice and other claims.