Monday, May 14, 2018
several s ct cases today.
a pretrial detainee objected to being shackled. the court found his case was moot, because he was no longer a pretrial detainee.
this undercuts roe v wade, which allowed norma jean to sue as jane roe, on the basis that she could get pregnant again, as well as some of my own cases.. i'll want to read this one. 9-0.
the court found that a car borrowed from a renter is still covere by the 4th a. 9-0.
important 10th a. case about new jersey bookies - the feds can't tell a state what to criminalise.
also this from david post
The court went on to affirm the district court's holding that Naruto had no copyright in the photograph because non-humans are barred from copyright ownership. But to reach this question of Naruto's copyright ownership, it first had to ask whether Naruto himself had standing to litigate the claim (even if PETA did not). It held, surprisingly, that he did; the complaint, alleging that "Naruto has suffered concrete and particularized economic harms as a result of [Slater's] infringing conduct, harms that can be redressed by a judgment declaring Naruto the author and owner of the Monkey Selfies," satisfied the constitutional "case or controversy" requirement in Article III, and the claimant - Naruto - therefore had standing under the Constitution to bring his claim.
a pretrial detainee objected to being shackled. the court found his case was moot, because he was no longer a pretrial detainee.
this undercuts roe v wade, which allowed norma jean to sue as jane roe, on the basis that she could get pregnant again, as well as some of my own cases.. i'll want to read this one. 9-0.
the court found that a car borrowed from a renter is still covere by the 4th a. 9-0.
important 10th a. case about new jersey bookies - the feds can't tell a state what to criminalise.
also this from david post
The court went on to affirm the district court's holding that Naruto had no copyright in the photograph because non-humans are barred from copyright ownership. But to reach this question of Naruto's copyright ownership, it first had to ask whether Naruto himself had standing to litigate the claim (even if PETA did not). It held, surprisingly, that he did; the complaint, alleging that "Naruto has suffered concrete and particularized economic harms as a result of [Slater's] infringing conduct, harms that can be redressed by a judgment declaring Naruto the author and owner of the Monkey Selfies," satisfied the constitutional "case or controversy" requirement in Article III, and the claimant - Naruto - therefore had standing under the Constitution to bring his claim.
Comments:
Post a Comment
