|
|
|
J.K. Rowling Smites Copyright Violator
U.S. Court News |
2008/09/09 07:02
|
J.K. Rowling vanquished the forces of darkness Monday when a federaljudge permanently enjoined RDR Books from publishing The Harry PotterLexicon, a guidebook to Rowling's best-selling series. U.S. DistrictJudge Robert Patterson Jr. blocked also ordered RDR to pay $6,750 instatutory damages.
Steven Jan Vander Ark, a librarian andHarry Potter fan, thus cannot publish his guide to Rowling's series,for which he said there was a considerable demand. Warner Bros., whichmade the Harry Potter movies, joined Rowling in suing for copyrightviolations.
The ruling came 5 months after a 4-day trial,during which Rowling described the Lexicon as wholesale theft of 17years of my hard work.
The next day at trial, Vander Ark sobbed on the stand, clearly upset that he had annoyed Rowling.
Judge Patterson found that RDR Books failed to establish its affirmative defense of fair use. a href=http://www.courthousenews.com/2008/09/09/Rowling.pdfimg src=http://www.courthousenews.com/document.ico border=0 alt=//a |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ninth Circuit rules on 'no-fly' list
U.S. Court News |
2008/08/20 07:07
|
The US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled Monday that those placed on the government's no-fly list can challenge their inclusion on the list in federal district courts. The issue came before the court in a case brought by a woman on the list, in which a district court had ruled that it lacked jurisdiction because of a law exempting Transportation Security Administration orders from federal trial court review. Reversing the decision, the Ninth Circuit held that the Terrorist Screening Center which actually maintains the list is a subsection of the Federal Bureau of Investigation and is therefore subject to review by the district courts:
blockquoteOur interpretation of section 46110 is consistent not merely with the statutory language but with common sense as well. Just how would an appellate court review the agency’s decision to put a particular name on the list? There was no hearing before an administrative law judge; there was no notice-and comment procedure. For all we know, there is no administrative record of any sort for us to review. So if any court is going to review the government’s decision to put Ibrahim’s name on the No-Fly List, it makes sense that it be a court with the ability to take evidence./blockquoteThe court also held that the woman could not bring two related claims because they were “inescapably intertwined” with TSA orders. The San Francisco Chronicle has more.
In July, the US terror watchlist, which includes the no-fly list, was criticized by the American Civil Liberties Union for being too large, containing inaccuracies, and lacking safeguards to prevent the unnecessary targeting of passengers for additional security screenings. In March, the US Department of Justice Office of the Inspector General issued a report saying that FBI had submitted inaccurate information to the list, that the information was rarely reviewed before its submission, and even if discrepancies become apparent they were often left unchanged. In response to the audit, FBI Assistant Director John Miller said that the agency was working with the DOJ and other partner agencies to ensure the proper balance between national security protection and the need for accurate, efficient, and streamlined watchlist processes. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Second Circuit Protects Plaintiff's Anonymity
U.S. Court News |
2008/08/18 08:27
|
A woman who filed a lawsuit for physical and sexual assault should be allowed to remain anonymous, the 2nd Circuit ruled in a question of first impression.
Judge Cabranes found that the district court improperly dismissed the plaintiff's case due to her refusal to give her name.
While plaintiffs usually must state their names to give the opposition a chance to mount a defense, Cabranes ruled that the district court stuck to the letter of the law without considering whether plaintiff had a legitimate need to keep her identity hidden.
The district court did not balance the plaintiff's interest in proceeding anonymously against the interests of the defendants and the public, Cabranes wrote. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
9th Circ. upholds denial of Oregon domestic partnership
U.S. Court News |
2008/08/15 07:12
|
The US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled on Thursday that Oregon Secretary of State Bill Bradbury did not violate the constitutional rights of voters who signed a petition to hold a referendum on a state law establishing same-sex domestic partnerships. Bradbury struck over 200 signatures from the petition after officials found that many of the signatures did not match those on voter registration cards. He then announced that the petition was approximately 100 signatures short of the required number. Voters were not permitted to contest the decision by introducing extrinsic evidence, and so signators brought suit, alleging violations of due process and equal protection guarantees. The Ninth Circuit held that any burden placed on the plaintiffs' fundamental right to vote was minimal and held that there had been no constitutional violations:
blockquoteThe Secretary’s procedures already allow chief petitioners and members of the public to observe the signature verification process and challenge decisions by county elections officials. The value of additional procedural safeguards therefore is negligible, and the burden on plaintiffs’ interests from the state’s failure to adopt their proposed procedures is slight at most.
/blockquotePlaintiffs had unsuccessfully asserted that Oregon was required to provide them with an opportunity to rehabilitate the stricken signatures, and also argued that the lack of uniform statewide rules for verifying referendum signatures violated Bush v. Gore.
The US District Court for the District of Oregon ruled in February that the domestic partnership law should be allowed to take effect after it was suspended last December. Oregon Governor Ted Kulongoski signed the bill into law last May after it was passed by the Oregon House and the Oregon Senate. The law would have taken effect on January 1 of this year had there been no lawsuit. |
|
|
|
|
|
Legal Marketing News RSS
