Interesting Bits of Law

Statutes

  1. Maxims of Jurisprudence: Cal. Civ. Code §§ 3509 – 3548
  2. Communications Decency Act § 230: 47 U.S.C. § 230
  3. Federal CAN-SPAM Act: 15 U.S.C. Chapter 103, §§ 7701 – 7713
  4. California's Uniform Trade Secrets Act (UTSA): Cal. Civ. Code §§ 3426 – 3426.11
  5. California's Uniform Electronic Transactions Act (UETA): Cal. Civ. Code §§ 1633.1 – 1633.17
  6. California's statute on agency: Cal. Civ. Code §§ 2295 – 2357
  7. California's Mortgage Foreclosure Consultant Act: Cal. Civ. Code §§ 2945 – 2945.11
  8. California Evidence Code: Admitting and Excluding Evidence: Cal. Evid. Code §§ 350 – 406
  9. California's Gift Certificate statute: Cal. Civ. Code §§ 1749.5 – 1749.51
  10. Hiring of Real Property: Cal. Civ. Code § 1950.5
  11. Racketeer Influenced & Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO): 18 U.S.C. §§ 1961–1968

Treaties

  1. Hague Convention on Service Abroad of Judicial and Extra-Judicial Documents in Civil and Commercial Matters

Cases

  1. MGM Studios v. Grokster
  2. Fair Housing Counsel v. Roommates.com: The 9th Circuit en banc held that CDA § 230 does not immunize Roommates.com from suit under the Fair Housing Act because Roommate.com's choice of questions in its online questionnaires had the effect of "inducing [users] to express illegal preferences" in their housing profiles (e.g., race, gender, marital status)
  3. Avista Management Inc. v. Wausau Underwriters Ins. Co.: Court orders attorneys to play Rock Paper Scissors
  4. Nix v. Hedden: Supreme Court determines whether a tomato is a "fruit" or a "vegetable"
  5. Trade-Mark Cases: Supreme Court held that a trademark is not "intellectual property" under federal law because Congress lacks the power to enact a trademark statute under Article 1, § 8, clause 8 of the Constitution
  6. Kearney v. Solomon Smith Barney: California's Supreme Court applied California's law against recording phone calls without consent to a phone call placed from Georgia to a California resident, where Georgia's law would have permitted the recording
  7. KSR v. Teleflex: Supreme Court examines what it means for a patent to be "obvious" in light of the prior art and, therefore, invalid
  8. E. Bement & Sons v. La Dow: The court discussed how the uncertainty of patent litigation significantly reduces the value of patents.  In 1895!
  9. NTP v. Research in Motion: Activity outside the U.S. can avoid infringement of method claims in a U.S. patent, but system claims may still be infringed.
  10. BMC Resources v. Paymentech: The court rejected the novel "divided infringement" theory of liability.
  11. KinderStart v. Google: Dismissal and denial of anti-SLAPP motion
  12. KinderStart v. Google: Court imposes Rule 11 sanctions against KinderStart's attorney for asserting allegations without a good-faith basis

First Amendment Cases

  1. Junger v. Daley
    1. Junger v. Daley: District Court finds that software code does not qualify as "speech" under the First Amendment
    2. Junger v. Daley: Sixth Circuit court of appeals reversed the District Court holding, finding that software code does qualify as "speech" under the First Amendment
  2. Everson v. Board of Education of the Township of Ewing: Supreme Court examined the constitutionality of state-sponsored bussing of children to private, religious schools
  3. Edwards v. Aguillard: Supreme Court struck down Louisiana's "Creationism Act," which forbade the teaching of evolution in public elementary and secondary schools unless accompanied by instruction in the theory of "creation science."
  4. Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District: District Court found that intelligent design is not science
  5. Scopes v. State of Tennessee

Back to Dan's Home Page

Valid HTML 4.01 Transitional