This site uses cookies to improve your experience. To help us insure we adhere to various privacy regulations, please select your country/region of residence. If you do not select a country, we will assume you are from the United States. Select your Cookie Settings or view our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.
Cookie Settings
Cookies and similar technologies are used on this website for proper function of the website, for tracking performance analytics and for marketing purposes. We and some of our third-party providers may use cookie data for various purposes. Please review the cookie settings below and choose your preference.
Used for the proper function of the website
Used for monitoring website traffic and interactions
Cookie Settings
Cookies and similar technologies are used on this website for proper function of the website, for tracking performance analytics and for marketing purposes. We and some of our third-party providers may use cookie data for various purposes. Please review the cookie settings below and choose your preference.
Strictly Necessary: Used for the proper function of the website
Performance/Analytics: Used for monitoring website traffic and interactions
Recently, Judge Seeger in the Northern District of Illinois surprisingly refused to grant rightsowners’ defendant identity sealing requests in at least two cases ( 1 , 2 ), but there may be more. In very similar opinions, Judge Seeger explained why defendant sealing is inappropriate. This blog post tracks the Goorin Bros.
4, 2021), the Massachusetts Supreme Court struck down Uber’s TOS because it wasn’t properly formed. Uber’s re-do was a high-stakes affair because (1) it had no existing TOS in place, and (2) it knew judges would critically scrutinize its every decision in the inevitable legal challenge. In Kauders v. Uber Techs. ,
The court agrees with Microsoft. ” If it matters, the concurring judge is a DeSantis appointee. 2013 WL 664231 (E.D. 2013); O’Kroley v. Among other defendants, he sued Microsoft for Bing search results linking to the episode. Microsoft defended on Section 230 grounds. Here’s an incomplete list: Maughan v.
My roundup of the top Internet Law developments of 2023: 10) California court bans targeted advertising (?). Facebook , a California appeals court shocked the advertising community by suggesting that using common demographic criteria for ad targeting, such as age or gender, may violate California’s anti-discrimination law.
We’ve blogged some of his cases before ( 1 , 2 ), including the lower court ruling in this case. In 2013, Philpot uploaded the photo to Wikimedia Commons, which is governed by the standard Creative Commons license requiring attribution. ” The district court granted summary judgment to IJR. Nature of Use.
We’d all been working for over a year on a contract that would make it possible, someday in the future, for everyone to have free and open access to all the official court decisions ever published in the United States. state and federal court decisions representing the bulk of our nation’s common law. Why Even Do This Project?
A Stanford Law School graduate, where he was president of the Stanford Law Review, Heller founded Casetext in 2013 after stints clerking for 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Michael Boudin and as an associate at law firm Ropes & Gray.
But that undersells the level of inconsistency in courts’ interpretations of the law of copyright preemption. It’s not that half of federal judges have adopted one clear stance on copyright preemption of contracts and the other half have adopted another clear stance. Three courts of appeals have answered “no.”
A judicial code of conduct is a set of ethical guidelines ensuring judges uphold integrity, impartiality, and professionalism. These bodies are often composed of judges and legal professionals who understand the nuances of judicial responsibilities and ethics. What is a judicial code of conduct?
Tania Luma, Assistant Dean for Loyola Law’s Office of Inclusion, Diversity, and Equity, presents to students at Northwestern Pritzker School of Law (L); Federal judges from the Northern District of Illinois participate in a panel discussion (R), including Judge Martha M. Pacold, Judge LaShonda A. Hunt, Judge Sunil R.
Analytics in legal research provided dramatic new insights into the behavior of judges, courts, attorneys and clients. It took less than ten years following the launch of Lex Machina in 2013 for legal analytics to move from esoteric to essential. Judges Push back on AI.
Analytics in legal research provided dramatic new insights into the behavior of judges, courts, attorneys and clients. It took less than ten years following the launch of Lex Machina in 2013 for legal analytics to move from esoteric to essential. Judges Push back on AI.
We’d all been working for over a year on a contract that would make it possible, someday in the future, for everyone to have free and open access to all the official court decisions ever published in the United States. state and federal court decisions representing the bulk of our nation’s common law. Why Even Do This Project?
The investigations come just one month after a class action was filed in the English High Court against YouTube for allegedly processing children’s data without obtaining parental permission or providing appropriate disclosures (see our September Round Up ).
A Stanford Law School graduate, where he was president of the Stanford Law Review, Heller founded Casetext in 2013 after stints clerking for 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Michael Boudin and as an associate at law firm Ropes & Gray.
Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Harris Hartz, Camara studied for a doctorate in economics at Stanford, taught corporate law at Northwestern, and was a founding partner of Camara & Sibley LLP in Houston. After a clerkship with 10th U.S. Thank You To Our Sponsors. This episode of LawNext is generously made possible by our sponsors.
Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Harris Hartz, Camara studied for a doctorate in economics at Stanford, taught corporate law at Northwestern, and was a founding partner of Camara & Sibley LLP in Houston. After a clerkship with 10th U.S. Thank You To Our Sponsors. This episode of LawNext is generously made possible by our sponsors.
Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Harris Hartz, Camara studied for a doctorate in economics at Stanford, taught corporate law at Northwestern, and was a founding partner of Camara & Sibley LLP in Houston. After a clerkship with 10th U.S. Thank You To Our Sponsors This episode of LawNext is generously made possible by our sponsors.
For somewhat of a time capsule of the past decade in legal technology, see my prior years’ lists of my most-popular posts: 2020 , 2019 , 2018 , 2017 , 2016 , 2015 , 2014 , 2013 , 2012 , 2011 , 2010 ). Ontario Court Lays Down the Law on Technology Competence and Video Proceedings (Dec. Top 15 of 2021 – First Published in 2021.
For somewhat of a time capsule of the past decade in legal technology, see my prior years’ lists of my most-popular posts: 2020 , 2019 , 2018 , 2017 , 2016 , 2015 , 2014 , 2013 , 2012 , 2011 , 2010 ). Ontario Court Lays Down the Law on Technology Competence and Video Proceedings (Dec. Top 15 of 2021 – First Published in 2021.
I enjoyed, you know, the kind of people problems, it had a litigation aspect, I liked the fact I ended up going to court quite a lot. Whereas at FRU it was all claimant work and, you know, people that weren’t represented, finally had somebody that could help them in court. And I really enjoyed it. I enjoyed the advocacy aspect.
Congress’ statutory ban was misguided and counterproductive; the Supreme Court accepted Congress’ national security pretext way too credulously; Biden and Trump both disregarded the law; and Congress shrugged its shoulders at the administration’s dereliction. Within 10 years, that outcome seems inevitable.
By Samuel Naramore In November 2023, a District CourtJudge in Colorado held that former President Trump had used his social media between 2020 and 2023 to incite lawless action. [1] 1] With the 2024 election cycle looming, this judge’s ruling is incredibly timely. Can the Government Restrict Incitement Content on Social Media?
9) Supreme Court Tamps Down on Jawboning and Government Social Media Lawsuits. The Supreme Court is taking a steady stream of Internet Law cases, a trend that will continue for some time. Tomorrow, the Supreme Court will hear the TikTok ban, and Wednesday, the Supreme Court will hear Free Speech Coalition v. In Bride v.
It was unveiled nationally in 2013. It’s been used nationally since 2013. These are individuals if they have a credible claim for relief from removal, they have every reason to show up in immigration court for their hearings, these are the things that a risk tool, ostensibly measures. It was piloted in 2011–2012.
The state appellate court disagrees. In addition to that flaw, the court says that Armslists allegations of jawboning dont rise to NRA v. I support the court’s decision, but I’m unhappy with the conduct of our taxpayer-funded representatives. Vullo s level of censorial threats.
We organize all of the trending information in your field so you don't have to. Join 5,000+ users and stay up to date on the latest articles your peers are reading.
You know about us, now we want to get to know you!
Let's personalize your content
Let's get even more personalized
We recognize your account from another site in our network, please click 'Send Email' below to continue with verifying your account and setting a password.
Let's personalize your content