As vaccinations increase and the warmth of Spring begin to envelop us, I thought it was time for a lighter column.
This decision appears to be the first in federal court to apply the revised New York anti-SLAPP statute in a case not involving a public figure.
A hedge fund founder accused of sexual harassment by five former employees failed to plausibly allege that a Boston Globe online science and health publication acted in a grossly irresponsible manner by publishing an article reporting on the allegations.
The Second Circuit has affirmed dismissal of a libel suit against The New York Times brought by a Justice Department official who took issue with a story reporting he had groped a young administrative assistant.
Despite recognizing that “Ekl, Ciolino and the appellate court all appear to assume that the single publication rule applies,” the Illinois Supreme Court took a different approach.
The Trump Campaign, alleging “millions of dollars” in damages, brought the suit over a 2019 Op-Ed by Max Frankel which concerned interactions between Russians and associates of Mr. Trump during the 2016 presidential campaign.
A Delaware court has dismissed a defamation lawsuit brought by former Trump 2016 campaign adviser Carter Page against Yahoo News and HuffPost concerning articles about the U.S. intelligence investigation into Page’s contacts with Russia.
The Griffin decision is good news for Sixth Circuit lawyers who no longer have to worry about a “gotcha” technicality and also for citizens who wish to comment on matters of public interest without risking being hauled into court where the subject of the tweet resides.
Sometimes a hyperlink is the last word in a defamation case.
A federal judge in Seattle has granted summary judgment and dismissal of a $26 million defamation lawsuit brought by neurosurgeon Dr. Johnny Delashaw against The Seattle Times.
A New York County Supreme Court judge has rendered the latest decision in the two-year old saga (and defamation case) of Cieszkowski v. Baldwin. The case is familiar to most New Yorkers, as the defendant is Alec Baldwin.
The court not only reversed pretty much the entirety of the extensive decision of the SDNY judge under review but it came close to disowning one of its own most important (and controversial) recent fair use precedents.
The suit raised the typical array of copyright issues relating to such matters as ownership, access, and substantial similarity of protectible expression. Complicating those issues were the long passage of time between creation of the works and the claim of infringement.
Sixth Circuit Clarifies When Online Marketplaces Can and Can’t Be Liable for Direct Trademark InfringementSam Zeitlin
The court held that direct trademark liability is limited by the Lanham Act’s requirement that the defendant “use” the mark in a way the Act prohibits, and as a result “some trademark-infringing activity does not create liability.”
MLRC deputy director thinks through non-fungible tokens.
The Supreme Court ruled that a plaintiff’s request for nominal damages—a claim for one dollar or a similar, small sum—satisfies the redressability requirements of Article III standing and prevents a plaintiff’s lawsuit from becoming moot.
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court, in the face of a powerful dissent, upheld a stunningly capacious gag order last December.
The Supreme Court held that opinions designated as drafts by an agency are protected from disclosure under Exemption 5 of the federal Freedom of Information Act, even when they serve as an agency’s last word on a proposed course of action.
In consolidated cases brought by The New York Times and The Wall Street Journal, a federal magistrate judge has ordered the federal government to make public a contractor’s report about mismanagement at the Indian Health Service that allowed a doctor to sexually abuse children for more than two decades.
The appellate court’s “who-knows-for-sure” standard is rhetorically striking and illustrates the virtually unbridled deference courts give to federal agencies in FOIA cases involving national security.
A New York federal district court ordered the unsealing of government emails, text messages and other documents at the heart of an extraordinary prosecutorial misconduct inquiry involving the elite terrorism and international narcotics unit in the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the SDNY.
The panel addressed a “peripheral-yet-essential point: Judicial records are public records. And public records, by definition, presume public access.”
The Court of Appeals applied the full rigor of Rule 76a to alleged trade secrets, notching a win for advocates of open access to public records in Texas.