Dojo: an accessible JavaScript toolkit

IBM's Phill Jenkins recently was appointed to serve a four-year term on the U.S. Access Board.

The Conversational Internet is an inspiring project developed by a team of Extreme Blue interns throughout the summer at the IBM Hursley Lab in the UK. The Royal London Society for Blind People approached IBM with the aim of creating improvements in the way that people who are blind interact with information on the Internet and the team is working towards a smart solution.

Today we'll evaluate JD.com, Inc. (NASDAQ:JD) to determine whether it could have potential as an investment idea. To...

Shareholders in Meritage Homes Corporation (NYSE:MTH) may be thrilled to learn that the analysts have just delivered a...

Potential Northwest Bancshares, Inc. (NASDAQ:NWBI) shareholders may wish to note that the Independent Director...

Shaw (SJR) reported earnings 30 days ago. What's next for the stock? We take a look at earnings estimates for some clues.

The world is nearing 4 million cases of the coronavirus. More COVID-19 news Saturday.

(California Court of Appeal) - Held that an interspousal transaction was not a transmutation of the husband's community interest in certain real property. The document he signed left ambiguous what his intent was. Reversed.

(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.

(California Court of Appeal) - Affirmed. The juvenile court granted visitation to the ex-boyfriend of the mother. The mother sought to block such visitation, but the juvenile court found that it was in the best interests of the child. The appeals court found no abuse of discretion.

(California Court of Appeal) - Affirmed order terminating father’s parental rights. Father presented no reasoned argument why there was an error in terminating his rights and he waived his challenge to the order.

(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.

(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.

(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.

(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 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 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 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) - In an amended opinion, held that an Egyptian musical composer's heir could not sue the rapper Jay-Z and other defendants for copyright infringement. Jay- Z had sampled the composer's 1957 musical arrangement in one of his hit songs. Affirmed judgment as a matter of law for the defendants, concluding that the composer's heir lacked standing.

(California Court of Appeal) - In an interpleader action, addressed a dispute among parties connected to the production of a Tony-award winning Broadway musical. Held that a judgment creditor's lien had priority over an unperfected security interest. Affirmed the judgment below.

(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 Ninth Circuit) - In an action claiming of trademark infringement, false designation of origin, and unfair competition brought under the Lanham Act and Nevada state law by a beverage company-plaintiff, which sells a competing line of flavored vodkas, the District Court's grant of summary judgment to defendant is reversed where the district court erred in: 1) failing to place the burden of proof on defendant, the moving party; 2) failing to view the evidence in the light most favorable to plaintiff; and 3) never analyzing whether a genuine dispute of material fact existed.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - In a trademark infringement action, arising after defendant purchased Trader Joe's goods in the United States and resold them at a mimic store in Canada, the district court's dismissal of plaintiff's Lanham Act claims is reversed where: 1) the extraterritorial application of the Lanham Act is a question as to the merits of a trademark claim instead of federal courts' subject-matter jurisdiction; and 2) Trader Joe's alleges a nexus between defendant's conduct and American commerce sufficient to warrant extraterritorial application of the Lanham Act.

(United States Federal Circuit) - In a trademark case to determine whether appellant used its marks in connection with personnel placement and recruitment services, or whether the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board correctly held that it failed to do so because it used its marks on software offerings, without more, the Board's decision is vacated where proper question is whether appellant, through its software, performed personnel placement and recruitment services and whether consumers would associate appellants registered marks with personnel placement and recruitment services, regardless of whether the steps of the service were performed by software.

(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 Federal Circuit) - In a petition for cancellation of a trademark, brought by the owner of the INSIGNIA mark used to sell wines since 1978 against the registrant of the ALEC BRADLEY STAR INSIGNIA mark used for cigars and cigar products, the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board's denial of the petition is vacated and remanded for reconsideration where: 1) the Board erred in its legal analysis, in analyzing the 'fame' of INSIGNIA wine as an all-or-nothing factor, and discounting it entirely in reaching the conclusion of no likelihood of confusion as to source, contrary to law and precedent; and 2) as a result of this error, the Board did not properly apply the totality of the circumstances standard, which requires considering all the relevant factors on a scale appropriate to their merits.

(United States Supreme Court) - On a question of civil procedure, held that a third-party counterclaim defendant -- that is, a party brought into a lawsuit through a counterclaim filed by the original defendant -- may not remove a class-action counterclaim from state court to federal court. Justice Thomas, joined by the four liberal justices, delivered the opinion of a 5-4 Court in this debt collection lawsuit.

(United States Seventh Circuit) - Granted a lawful permanent resident's petition for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals decision. Held that his Illinois conviction for unlawful possession of several Xanax pills without a prescription did not render him removable.