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

(United States Second Circuit) - Affirmed in part, vacated in part, remanded. The District Court erred in granting a petition to have a child returned to his habitual home of Italy under the Hague Convention. Although it was affirmed that Italy was the child's habitual residence if repatriating him would expose the child to a grave risk of harm the district court isn't necessarily bound to return him.

(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 Fourth Circuit) - District Court affirmance of bankruptcy court order confirming Chapter 11 reorganization plan of nonprofit public charity is vacated and case remanded where: 1) bankruptcy court did not make specific factual findings explaining why it approved and included certain release, injunction, and exculpation provisions applicable to nondebtors; and 2) appeal was not equitably moot.

(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.

(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) - 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.

(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.

(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 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.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Affirmed the dismissal of a copyright infringement action brought against an individual who allegedly downloaded and distributed (i.e., pirated) a movie through peer-to-peer BitTorrent networks. The individual argued that he was not liable for infringement even if the infringing Internet Protocol (IP) address was his, because multiple individuals could connect via his IP address. Agreeing with him and noting that he operated an adult foster care home, the Ninth Circuit held that the complaint failed to state a claim of either direct or contributory infringement.

(United States Third Circuit) - Affirmed the dismissal of a TV producer's complaint alleging that the popular Fox Television series Empire infringed his copyright in a television pilot he had created a decade earlier. Moving to dismiss, the defendants contended that there was no substantial similarity between the two television shows. Agreeing, the Third Circuit affirmed the dismissal of the complaint.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - Held that a company had legal standing to challenge a city council resolution barring it from holding a controversial love- and sex-themed expo at the city's convention center. Reversed the district court's ruling on standing, which was based on the specific language of the resolution, in a case where the company asserted First Amendment, equal protection, and other claims against the city.

(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) - Ordering the district court to vacate orders prohibiting the petitioner from expressing their views on litigation or republishing public documents over social media platforms, and requiring them to post a disclaimer prohibiting comment on the litigation because this amounted to prior restraint on their First Amendment rights.

(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 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) - 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 Fifth Circuit) - Affirmed. A sentence imposed on a man for illegal reentry to the US was affirmed. An upward variance at sentencing that considered the facts of an unrelated case and his need for treatment for alcoholism was not in error.

(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.

#architektura #architekt #dom #design

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

via Criticidades https://ift.tt/1RabwUr

More importantly right now, does a higher level of vitamin D enable you to fight off infections such as influenza and COVID? Of course, as I stated at the beginning, in the middle of the COVID maelstrom, people are claiming everything about everything.

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

This note examines the published data protection impact assessment (DPIA) released by NHSX in relation to their contact tracing/proximity tracing app. It highlights a range of significant issues which leave the app falling short of data protection legislation. It does this in order so that these issues can be remedied before the next DPIA is published.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23091359

I absolutely *love* these Amazon Writing Style Tips (found via Google & ) Have any other companies offered a glimpse into their in-house style?

All your questions about the pandemic, answered. Sort of. Mr. Eggers is a novelist and journalist. via Pocket

(United States Federal Circuit) - Affirmed that a pharmaceutical company's patent claims in a multiple sclerosis drug were invalid for obviousness. Several competitors seeking to market a generic version of the same drug raised the issue of obviousness when the company sued them for infringement. In a 2-1 decision, the Federal Circuit affirmed that the patent claims in question were invalid.

(California Court of Appeal) - Reversed. Defendant appealed from multiple convictions for robbery. He challenged the trial court’s admission of police interrogation statements, text exchange with his mother, and books and documents found in his car. The appeals court found that the police interrogation was properly admitted, but the text messages and the books and documents were not. This error by the trial court was prejudicial and therefore required reversal and remand.

(United States Seventh Circuit) - Affirmed. Probable cause supported the search of a man's home and even if it hadn't the officers could rely on the warrant in good faith. Sentencing was properly calculated.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - Denied. A man on death row could not show that a reasonable jurist would debate whether the district court abused its discretion denying a motion to reopen his final judgment and for stay of execution and did not establish circumstances justifying the exercise of equitable discretion.

(Supreme Court of California) - Reversed court of appeal ruling that found prejudicial error. Defendant was charged with assault with a deadly weapon, specifically a box cutter. The Supreme Court concluded as a matter of law that a box cutter is not inherently deadly, but that the Defendant used the box cutter in a deadly way. The Court went on to say that the trial court’s determination that the box cutter was an inherently deadly weapon was harmless error.

(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.

FOUR years ago, Olivia Mitchell joined her first soccer team. Now the 12 year old is set to represent NSW in the national primary schools competition.

THE installation of a special boundary to help Orthodox Jewish families carry out normal activities on holy days has erupted into a fight with council.

(United States First Circuit) - In a suit brought under a Puerto Rico 'Law 458', which prohibits government instrumentalities and public corporations from awarding bids or contracts to persons (including juridical persons) who have been convicted of 'crimes that constitute fraud, embezzlement or misappropriation of public funds listed in section 928b of this title,' P.R. Laws Ann. tit. 3, section 928, the district court's judgment remanding the case to the Commonwealth Puerto Rico Court of First Instance is affirmed where the forum selection clauses at issue were enforceable, and that the unanimity requirement of 28 U.S.C. section 1446(b)(2)(A) therefore could not be satisfied.

(California Court of Appeal) - Held that the superior court did not err in denying a motion to set aside an indictment. The defendant in this case alleging that medical clinics fraudulently billed insurance companies argued that the indictment failed to provide constitutionally adequate notice of the charges against him and also improperly aggregated multiple acts into single counts. Rejecting his arguments, the Fourth Appellate District held that there was no basis for issuing a writ of prohibition directing the indictment to be set aside.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Affirmed the dismissal of a copyright infringement action brought against an individual who allegedly downloaded and distributed (i.e., pirated) a movie through peer-to-peer BitTorrent networks. The individual argued that he was not liable for infringement even if the infringing Internet Protocol (IP) address was his, because multiple individuals could connect via his IP address. Agreeing with him and noting that he operated an adult foster care home, the Ninth Circuit held that the complaint failed to state a claim of either direct or contributory infringement.