Is It Really Libel and Defamatory? : Howard K. Stern‚ Plaintiff v. Rita Cosby and Hachette Book Group USA‚ Inc.‚ Defendants A country; particularly the United States‚ legal infrastructure is a key factor in the media ’s ability to fulfill their "watchdog" function. However‚ most of the 1990s had completely lacked a legal base that would allow non-governmental media to defend their newfound abilities to present alternative and often critical points of view. New legal rulings and laws passed
Premium
BURWELL V. HOBBY LOBBY‚ INC. 134 S. Ct 2751 (US 2014) SUPREME COURT OF UNITED STATES Facts: Hobby Lobby is a family owned arts and crafts store that runs on Christian principles. The companies statement of purpose is “honoring the Lord in all [they] do by operating the company in a manner consistent with Biblical principles.” The family does not believe in the use of contraception but under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA)‚ the company is required to offer a minimum coverage
Premium Supreme Court of the United States United States
becomes an integral part of discussion. Various interesting cases that have been dealt by the Canadian Judiciary and statutes having bearing on IP and competition law will be discussed An overview of the Competition Act 1986 The primary objective of competition law and policy is to foster competition‚ consumer welfare and efficiency. The Canadian Law also focuses on these immutable objectives and explicitly provides that:
Premium Canada Law Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms
SCHEDULE “A” 1. The Plaintiffs claim from the Defendants: (a) payment of the sum of $25‚000.00; (b) pre-judgment and post-judgment interest on the sum of $25‚000.00 calculated pursuant to the Courts of Justice Act‚ R.S.O. 1990‚ c.C43‚ as amended; (c) costs of this action on a substantial indemnity basis; and (d) such further and other relief as this Honourable Court deems just. 2. The Plaintiff‚ Nayan Patel (“Nayan”) is an individual now residing in Barrie‚ Ontario. Nayan
Premium Generally Accepted Accounting Principles Balance sheet Depreciation
In article “You Asked for it‚ You got it…Toy Yoda: Practical Jokes‚ Prizes and Contract Law” by Keith A. Rowley‚ the professor of the University of Nevada‚ is discussing a case of Berry v Gulf Coast Wings Inc. The case gathered a lot of attention of the legal world and extensive press coverage at the time. A 26-year-old Jodee Berry was working as a waitress in Hooters restaurant in Panama City‚ Florida. In April 2001‚ all the waitresses were informed by their manager‚ Jared Blair‚ that a month-long
Premium Contract
Hannah David 11 February 2013 Business Law Rothing v. Kallestad Issues: 1) Whether the district court erred in concluding that hay is not a “product “for purposes of a strict liability in tort cause of action. 2) Whether the District Court erred in concluding that the Rothings negligence claim against Kallestad fails because it was unforeseeable that the hay could cause injury and death to the Rothings’ horses‚ thus no duty of care existed. 3) Whether the District Court erred in concluding that
Premium Tort Contract law Implied warranty
term "freedom of expression" as "Permitting free expression to the end of promoting truth‚ political or social participation‚ and self-fulfilment. That purpose extends to the protection of minority beliefs which the majority regard as wrong or false." R. v. Zundel. It was fair? Unlawful? Profile of the Law: Criminal Code of Canada Spreading False News Section 181 Every one who wilfully publishes a statement‚ tale‚ or news that he knows is false and that causes or is likely to cause injury or mischief
Premium Nazi Germany World War II Jews
United States v. Jones‚ United States Supreme Court (2012) 132 S. Ct. 945 Facts of the Case Respondent Jones was a subject of a Government investigation in part of a much larger drug trafficking conspiracy. As part of the investigation‚ FBI agents had obtained a court order to place a GPS tracking device on a vehicle driven by Jones – a Jeep registered to Jone’s wife. The court order was issued in the District of Columbia and was set to expire 10 days after it was signed by the judge. On Day
Premium Supreme Court of the United States Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution
Citation: Harvestons Securities‚ Inc. v. Narnia Investments‚ Ltd.‚ 218 S.W.3d 126 (2007) Plaintiff and Defendant: The plaintiff/appellant is Harvestons Securities‚ Inc. The defendant/appellee is Narnia Investments‚ Ltd. Facts: In year 2000‚ Narnia Investments‚ Ltd. sued Harvestons Securities‚ Inc. and several defendants in trial court of Texas. The trial court then granted a default judgment against Harvestons and in favor of Narnia that Harvestons has to pay $365‚000‚ plus attorney’s fees‚ prejudgment
Premium Civil procedure Service of process Complaint
Mazzagati v. Everingham‚ 512 Pa. 266 (1986). Facts: An automobile driven by Defendant fatally struck Plaintiff’s daughter. At the time of the accident‚ Plaintiff received a telephone call immediately after the collision at work informing her that her daughter had been involved in an automobile accident. Plaintiff arrived at the scene of the accident a few minutes later. Procedural Posture: Defendants filed a Motion for Summary Judgment in the nature of a Demurrer granted by the Montgomery County
Premium Law Negligence Plaintiff