Many collectors and enthusiasts continue to travel aboard gas-guzzling airplane to see art.

Tesla CEO Elon Musk said Saturday the company will file a lawsuit against Alameda County and threatened to move its headquarters and future programs to Texas or Nevada immediately, escalating a fight between the company and health officials over whether its factory in Fremont can reopen. Tesla had planned to bring back about 30% of its factory workers Friday as part of its reopening plan, defying Alameda County's stay-at-home order. TechCrunch has reached out to Elon Musk directly.

COVID-19 is taking a heavy financial toll on city budgets in general and with local law enforcement on the front lines fighting the pandemic, police department budgets in particular have been severely strained.The letters read in part:"Anecdotally, Madison, WI may have to eliminate 30 police department positions next year; Oklahoma City is looking at a 3.

Check out our weekly earnings calendar and read the latest quarterly earnings previews.

(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.

(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.

(United States Second Circuit) - Denied. In a 6-5 vote, the panel majority declines to rehear the case en banc, holding that the Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act of 1980 creates a privately enforceable right for foster parents to sue states for costs related to child care. Five judges dissent.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - In a suit brought by two nonprofit veterans organizations against the Department of Veterans Affairs, the Ninth Circuit en banc holds: 1) the district court lacked jurisdiction to reach the plaintiffs' statutory and due process challenges to alleged delays in the provision of mental health care and to the absence of procedures to challenge such delays; 2) the district court lacked jurisdiction to reach the plaintiffs' claims related to delays in the adjudication of service-related disability benefits; 3) the district court had jurisdiction to consider the plaintiffs' challenges to the alleged inadequacy of the procedures at the regional office level; and 4) the district court properly exercised that jurisdiction to deny the plaintiffs' claim on the merits.

(United States Second Circuit) - In plaintiffs' suit alleging violations of the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 (RLUIPA) over a longstanding land-use dispute to build a church and a school, district court's judgment is affirmed where: 1) the town violated the Church's rights under RLUIPA; 2) the town lacked a rational basis for delaying and denying the church's project and therefore violated the church's Free Exercise rights; 3) the church has adequately established a class-of-one Equal Protection claim; and 4) the district court's injunction was specifically tailored to the injury the church had suffered and did not exceed the district court's discretion.

(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 Fourth Circuit) - In an action seeking attorneys fees under 26 U.S.C. section 7431(c)(3), following a settlement between the IRS and plaintiff over the disclosure of an unredacted version of plaintiff's donor list, filed as part of plaintiff's required IRS Form 990, the district court's denial of plaintiff's motion for attorneys fees is affirmed where the government's litigation position regarding actual damages was substantially justified under 26 U.S.C. section 7430 (c)(4)(B).

(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

(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.

(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.

(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.

(KS Supreme Court) - No. 114,937

(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.

(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 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 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.

#architektura #architekt #dom #design

#architektura #architekt #dom #design

Just signed up for earlybird access to the course. Can't wait to get started with sales and building a profitable business via @louisnicholls_

RT @IsaacScher__: NEW: Half of all Brooklynites are white, but 97.5% of the borough's social distancing arrests were of people of color.

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."

I can’t stop laughing at this.

If the authorities can’t satisfy the public’s desire to know more, others will fill the void with misinformation. Carl Bergstrom, professor of biology at the UW, is mentioned.

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

via Health News - The New York Times https://nyti.ms/2WLL65m