(United States Fourth Circuit) - In an action by a Virginia non-profit corporation organized under section 527 of the Internal Revenue Code to provide "accurate and truthful information about the public policy positions of Senator Barack Obama," contending that it was "chilled" from posting information about then-Senator Obama because of the vagueness of a Commission regulation, 11 C.F.R. section 100.22(b), and a Commission policy, published at 72 Fed. Reg. 5595 (Feb. 7, 2007), relating to whether plaintiff has to make disclosures or is a "political committee" (PAC), the District Court's judgment is affirmed where: 1) neither the regulation nor policy are unconstitutionally broad and vague in violation of the First and Fifth Amendments; and 2) it correctly applied the "exacting scrutiny" standard applicable to disclosure provisions.

(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 this case, the district court's judgment in favor of defendants Federal National Mortgage Association and Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation, finding them statutorily exempt from state and local taxation of real property transfers and finding that Congress had the constitutional authority to exempt defendants from such taxation, is affirmed, where: 1) the transfer taxes at issue here are excise taxes, and the statutory carve-outs allowing for taxation of real property encompass only property taxes, not excise taxes; 2) because Congress had power under the Commerce Clause to regulate the secondary mortgage market, it had power under the Necessary and Proper Clause to ensure the preservation of defendant organizations by exempting them from state and local taxes; and 3) the exemptions do not violate the Tenth Amendment.

(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 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 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 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.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Reinstated claims for violation of California law copyrights possessed in certain musical performance sound recordings. The plaintiff copyright holders argued that their decision to remaster their pre-1972 analog sound recordings onto digital formats did not bring the remastered sound recordings exclusively under the ambit of federal law. Agreeing with the plaintiffs that their state law copyright claims were not preempted, the Ninth Circuit reversed the entry of summary judgment for the defendant radio broadcasters.

(California Court of Appeal) - Held that a fan of the singer Michael Jackson could not proceed with her proposed class action lawsuit against an entertainment company and others for releasing a posthumous album that allegedly contained three fake tracks not actually sung by the popular singer. The defendants, who filed an anti-SLAPP motion, contended that the claims against them must be stricken. Agreeing with them, the California Second Appellate District reversed the trial court's denial of the anti-SLAPP motion in relevant part.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - In an amended opinion, reinstated musical recording owners' claims that radio broadcasters violated their state law copyrights in pre-1972 analog sound recordings that were later remastered onto digital formats. Reversed the entry of summary judgment for the broadcasters and also reversed the striking of the plaintiffs' class certification motion.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Held that an African American-owned operator of television networks sufficiently pleaded a claim that a cable television operator refused to enter into a carriage contract based on racial bias, in violation of 42 U.S.C. section 1981. Also, the section 1981 claim was not barred by the First Amendment. On interlocutory appeal, affirmed denial of a motion to dismiss.

(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 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 Third Circuit) - In a trademark dispute in which no written contract designates ownership, involving the paradigm through which common law ownership of an unregistered trademark is determined when the initial sale of goods bearing the mark is between a manufacturer and its exclusive distributor, the district court's judgment is: 1) affirmed on alternative grounds as to ownership, where the court failed to recognize and apply the rebuttable presumption of manufacturer ownership that pertains where priority of ownership is not otherwise established; 2) affirmed as to fraud and acquiescence; and 3) vacated and remanded on damages under the Lanham Act, where the court incorrectly relied on gross sales unadjusted to reflect sales of infringing products to calculate damages.

(United States First Circuit) - Reversed the order to dismiss the plaintiff's copyright and trademark claims stemming from a songwriting contest. Plaintiff entered a songwriting competition and agreed to the terms of the contest rules including an arbitration provision. Plaintiff did not win the contest, but alleges that the song he submitted was used by defendant for a music video. The court held that defendant was not a party to the arbitration agreement and could not invoke its provisions.

(United States Seventh Circuit) - Addressed a damages issue in a case where a jury found that a musical instrument retailer infringed another retailer's trademark. Affirmed the denial of the plaintiff's motion amend the judgment.

(United States Seventh Circuit) - Affirmed. Gatorade's use of the slogan "Gatorade The Sports Fuel Company" was fair use protected by the Lantham Act in a suit alleging trademark violations filed by SportsFuel.

(United States Supreme Court) - Held that a business engaged in nonjudicial foreclosure proceedings was not a "debt collector" under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. A homeowner claimed that the business violated certain statutory requirements in carrying out a foreclosure on behalf of a lender. Rejecting this argument, the U.S. Supreme Court held that the Act was inapplicable to this nonjudicial foreclosure proceeding. Justice Breyer delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court, clarifying the statute's definition of debt collector.

(United States Supreme Court) - Held that probable cause to make an arrest defeats a claim that the arrest was in retaliation for protected speech. A man arrested at a winter sports festival claimed that the reason was his speech. However, because there was probable cause to arrest him for disorderly conduct, his First Amendment retaliatory arrest claim failed as a matter of law. Chief Justice Roberts delivered the U.S. Supreme Court's opinion. There were several concurring and dissenting opinions.

(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) - Clarified the circumstances in which a court may hold a creditor in civil contempt for attempting to collect a debt that a bankruptcy discharge order has immunized from collection. Held that there should be "no fair ground of doubt" that the order barred the creditor's conduct. Justice Breyer delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court.

(United States Supreme Court) - Clarified the limits of a State's power to tax a trust. Struck down a North Carolina requirement that a trust must pay income tax to the State whenever the trust's beneficiaries live in the State -- regardless of whether the beneficiaries have received, can demand, or will ever receive a distribution of trust income. Justice Sotomayor delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court, in this due process challenge brought by a family trust.

(United States Supreme Court) - Held that a mariner may not recover punitive damages on a claim that he was injured as a result of the unseaworthy condition of the vessel. After a hatch blew open and injured his hand, the deckhand filed suit under federal maritime law and sought punitive damages, among other things. However, the U.S. Supreme Court concluded that punitive damages are unavailable in unseaworthiness actions. Justice Alito delivered the opinion of the 6-3 Court.

(United States Supreme Court) - Held that the government's decision to add a citizenship question to the 2020 census questionnaire did not violate the Enumeration Clause or the Census Act. However, the sole stated reason for reinstating the question "seems to have been contrived," and therefore it was appropriate to remand the case back to the agency on that ground. Chief Justice Roberts delivered the Court's opinion, some portions of which were unanimous while others received the support of only four justices in various groupings.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - Affirmed. Defendant plead guilty to one count of transporting illegal aliens. He claimed district court erred by applying sentence enhancements. Appeals court found no error.

#architektura #architekt #dom #design

In an age of trolls, economic insecurity and social isolation, mixed martial arts gives fans a rush of harsh reality.

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

(NY Court of Appeals) - No. 26

GAINESVILLE, Fla. (AP) — The decision to shelve detailed advice from the nation’s top disease control experts for reopening communities during the coronavirus pandemic came from the highest levels of the White House, according to internal government emails obtained by The Associated Press.

If this lede doesn't get you, I don't know what will. @davidmcswane's latest:

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.

By now I understood that the story I was telling about Val Kilmer, which I’d thought had been about a man’s relentless faith and optimism, was really about reconciliation: the squaring of two opposing things into something we swear is true despite all evidence to the contrary. Your beauty can sentence you to misery; Val Kilmer uses a tracheostomy tube, but he can talk; his brother is dead but only to our senses. Mark Twain despised Mary Baker Eddy, until you can will him into a dream where he doesn’t. God is good, and there are no ventilators. My beautiful friend has cancer, and the treatment exists, but it’s unavailable to her right now.

sparks - A typeface for creating sparklines in text without code.

Rivalling One Direction-ers in devotion, Australian fans of the musical maestro André Rieu are set to again be wowed at the cinema screenings of his 2016 Maastricht concert.

(United States Federal Circuit) - Affirmed that a Fifth Amendment takings claim was not ripe in a case where the plaintiffs alleged that the U.S. government had caused a compensable taking by barring repairs to forest-fire-damaged roads which provided the only means to access their patented mining and homestead claims within the Santa Fe National Forest. In finding that their regulatory taking case was not yet ripe for review, the appeals court noted that plaintiffs had not yet applied for a permit to reconstruct the forest roads.

(United States Federal Circuit) - Held that a teacher working for the U.S. Department of Defense Domestic Dependent Elementary and Secondary Schools failed to file a timely petition for review of a decision removing her from the federal service. The teacher, who argued that her procedural due process rights were violated when she was fired from her job teaching on a military base, petitioned for review of an arbitrator's decision. However, the Federal Circuit concluded that her petition for review was not timely filed and thus dismissed it.

(California Court of Appeal) - Writ issued and trial court directed to grant Defendant's motion. Defendant sought to have the complaint against him dismissed for failure to conduct a preliminary examination within 60 days. Trial court denied the motion, but Appeals court held the 60-day rule is absolute and there was no evidence that supported tolling the rule.

(Supreme Court of California) - A prosecutor in a criminal case has a duty to disclose to the defense information that they personally know and information that they can learn about that is favorable to the accused. This obligation to disclose even includes restricted information about law enforcement officers. A law enforcement agency may disclose to the prosecution identifying information about an office and relevant exonerating or impeaching material in a confidential personnel file.