Cases

423 F.Supp.2d 331 (2006) Gary W. DODSON, Plaintiff, v. CBS BROADCASTING INC., et al., Defendants. No. 02 CIV.09270 (RJH). United States District Court, S.D. New York. March 29, 2006. *332 *333 Gary W. Dodson, Clark, NJ, Pre So. Bettina Barasch Plevan, Howard Zachary Robbins, Proskauer R

269 F.Supp.2d 772 (2003) Wylanda GALES, Patricia Gamble, Daniel Glass, Dorothy McGee, Jerry Scott, Jr., and Charles Wesley Plaintiffs v. CBS BROADCASTING, INC.; Media General Operations, Inc., d/b/a WJTV; Wyatt Emmerich; Beau Strittman; Don Hewitt; Morley Safer; Deidre Naphin; Jennifer Breheny; and John Does 1-50 Defendants No. CIV.A.5:03-CV-35(BRS). United States District Court, S.D. Mississippi, West

Eyler, Deborah S., J. This appeal presents a question of first impression in Maryland: whether, and under what circumstances, a plaintiff in a civil case who also is a defendant in a related criminal prosecution is entitled to a stay of the civil case so as not to penalize her for invoking her Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination. We shall hold that in deciding whether t

806 Argued and submitted June 24, 2021; decision of Court of Appeals affirmed in part and reversed in part, judgment of circuit court reversed, and case remanded to circuit court for further proceedings June 23, 2022 Tom LOWELL, dba Piano Studios and Showcase, Respondent on Review, v. Matthew WRIGHT and Artisti

293 F.Supp.2d 694 (2003) Anthony BERRY, Almeta Dorsey, Johnny Anderson, Elroy Thomas, Minnie Woods, Lee Guice, Don Donaldson, Thelma Sanders, and John Does 1-21 Plaintiffs v. Morley SAFER; Viacom Inc.; 3M Company; CBS Broadcasting, Inc.; Don Hewitt; Media General Operations, Inc., d/b/a WJTV; Beau Strittman; Wyatt Emmerich; Deidre Naphin; Jennifer Breheny; and Jane Does 1-1000 Defendants No. 5:03-CV-3.

401 F.Supp.2d 362 (2005) Shirley Ann FISK, Plaintiff, v. David LETTERMAN, Worldwide Pants, Sumner M. Redstone, Leslie Moonves, Mel Karmazin, Viacom Inc., CBS Inc., City of New York, William Delace, Michael Z. McIntee, Project Help, Dr. John Doe, John Joe, Officer J. Soe, Dr. Koe, Dr. Ricardo Castaneda, Dr. Steven Ciric, Dr. William Roman, Susan Kolcun, Delsa Best, Grace Mones, State of Connecticut, Does 1-30, Defendants. No.

MEMORANDUM OPINION (Resolving Parties’ Motions in Limine) ROYCE C. LAMBERTH, Chief Judge. I. BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY This case concerns the District of Columbia Department of Corrections’ (“DOC”) practice of overdetaining and strip searching its inmates. The plaintiffs, forme

Opinion McINTYRE, J. Coronado Police Officers Association and seven other police officers associations (collectively the Association) appeal from a judgment denying them access to a database created by defendants Steven J. Carroll, as the San Diego County Public Defender, and San Diego County Department of the Public Defender (collectively the Public Defender) under the California Public Records Act, Government

345 F.Supp.2d 372 (2004) Sammy CONTES, Thomas R. Walsh, Francis Bedetti III, Robert H. Itzla, Mark Berkery, Michael David Neubarger, and Local 589, International Association of Firefighters, AFL-CIO, Plaintiffs v. Harold PORR, III, individually, Marilyn Berson, individually, and the City of Newburgh, New York, Defendants. No. 02 Civ. 5194 (CM) (MDF). United States District Court, S.D. New York.

785 F.Supp. 1272 (1991) TREE PUBLISHING CO., INC., Harlan Howard and Ron Peterson v. WARNER BROS. RECORDS, A DIVISION OF TIME-WARNER, INC., Randy Travis, Three Story Music, Alan Jackson and Seventh Son Music. No. 3:91-0791. United States District Court, M.D. Tennessee, Nashville Division. November 27, 1991. *1273 Kemper Harlan Do

OPINION AND ORDER LEISURE, District Judge. For the reasons set forth below, the Intervening Defendants’ motion to quash trial subpoenas is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. BACKGROUND The Court assumes familiarity with the facts and allegations as stated in the Court’s many prior decisions in this action. See Aristocrat Leisure Ltd. v. De

OPINION EN BANC LYNCH, Circuit Judge. This case, involving speech interests on both sides, arises from the decision of two public high school student publications — the newspaper and yearbook — not to publish an advertisement. The advertisement promoted sexual abstinence and was proffered by a parent, Douglas Yeo, in the aftermath of a decision by the Lexington, Massachusetts School Committee to make cond

632 So.2d 1377 (1994) SOUTHERN BELL TELEPHONE AND TELEGRAPH COMPANY, Petitioner, v. J. Terry Deason, et al., Respondents. Nos. 81487, 81716, 81926 and 82196. Supreme Court of Florida. March 10, 1994. *1379 Marshall M. Criser, Robert J. Winicki, David M. Wells and William W. Deem, Jacksonville, and Harris R. Anthony and J. Phillip

131 F.3d 241 122 Ed. Law Rep. 924, 26 Media L. Rep. 1193 Douglas E. YEO, Individually and on Behalf of His Childrenand as Chairman of the Lexington ParentsInformation Network, Plaintiff, Appellant,v.TOWN OF LEXINGTON, Jeffrey Young, Superintendent, DavidWilson, Principal, Samuel Kafrissen, Karen Mechem and JosephDini, Chairman, John Oberteuffer, Lois Coit, Susan Elbergerand Barrie Peltz, Indi

USCA1 Opinion United States Court of Appeals For the First Circuit ____________________ No. 96-1623 DOUGLAS E. YEO, Individually and on Behalf of His Children and as Chairman of the Lexington Parents Information Network,

United States Court of Appeals For the First Circuit No. 96-1623 DOUGLAS E. YEO, Individually and on Behalf of His Children and as Chairman of the Lexington Parents Information Network, Plaintiff, Appellant, v. Town of LEXINGTON, Jeffrey Young, Superintendent, David Wilson, Principal, Samuel Kafrissen, Karen Mechem and Joseph Dini, Chair

OPINION OF THE COURT A. LEON HIGGINBOTHAM, Jr., Circuit Judge. The appellant, Thomas J. Gillen, was found guilty of conspiring to fix prices in *542violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act. 15 U.S.C. § 1. He argues that the district court erred in not making specific findings on intent and that the ev

Honorable Lloyd D. Vincent President Angelo State University San Angelo, Texas 76901 Re: Application of Copyright Revision Act of 1976 to performances of musical works at state colleges and universities. Dear President Vincent: You inquire about the application of federal copyright law to musical performances at state colleges and universities. The Copyright Revision Act of 1976, 17 U.S.C. § 101-810, gives a copyright owner the exclusive right to authorize the public

. . . The Attorney General of Texas October 31, 1978 JOHN L. HILL Attorney General Opinion No. I-i- 12 6 0 Re: Application of Copyright Revision Act of 1976 to perfo

HUGHES, District Judge. This case presents the question of whether a television station’s refusal to accept filmed commercials submitted by an advertising agency on behalf of its clients, payment for which would be made by the station on a commission basis, constitutes a violation of the federal antitrust laws. Appellant, Six Twenty-Nine Productions, Inc