Cases

In a proceeding for permission to administer antipsychotic medication to William E., a mentally ill person, without his consent, the appeal is from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Cutrona, J.), dated March 4, 1999, which, after a hearing, granted the petition. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, without costs or disbursements. Contrary to the appellant’s contention, the petitioner established by clear

264 So.2d 859 (1972) MIRIAM MASCHECK, INC., a Florida Corporation, and Miriam Maschek, Appellants, v. Ruth MAUSNER and Howard Mausner, Appellees. No. 71-1220. District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District. July 25, 1972. *860 Bradford, Williams, McKay, Kimbrell, Hamann & Jennings and A.H. Toothman, Miami, for appellants

MEMORANDUM ** Dewayne Kevon Moore appeals from the district court’s judgment revoking supervised release. Because Moore has fully served his revocation sentence and is not subject to a term of supervised release, we dismiss this appeal as moot. See Spencer v. Kemna, 523 U.S. 1, 14, 118 S.Ct. 978, 140 L.Ed.2d 43 (1998); United States v. Palomba, 182 F.3d 1121, 1123 (9th Cir. 1999).

MENYUK, J.T.C. This is an appeal from a judgment of the Monmouth County Board of Taxation affirming the defendant’s assessor’s denial of plaintiffs’ application to have their property valued, assessed, and *42taxed as farmland for tax year 2002. The subject property is known as 60 Rumson Road and is identified on the municipal tax map as Block 100, Lot 3. The contested a

[EDITORS' NOTE: THIS PAGE CONTAINS HEADNOTES. HEADNOTES ARE NOT AN OFFICIAL PRODUCT OF THE COURT, THEREFORE THEY ARE NOT DISPLAYED.] *Page 1052 [EDITORS' NOTE: THIS PAGE CONTAINS HEADNOTES. HEADNOTES ARE NOT AN OFFICIAL PRODUCT OF THE COURT, THEREFORE THEY ARE NOT DISPLAYED.] *Page 1053 [EDITORS' NOTE: THIS PAGE CONTAINS HEADNOTES. HEADNOTES ARE NOT AN OFFICIAL PRODUCT OF THE COURT, THEREFORE THEY ARE NO

PER CURIAM. Plaintiffs, Christopher S. Brighton and Avery Brighton, appeal the February 4, 2005 judgment of the Tax Court of New Jersey, affirming the judgment of the Monmouth County Board of Taxation, affirming the denial by the Borough of Rumson assessor of plaintiffs’ application to have their 6.167 acre property at 60 Rumson Road valued, assessed and taxed as farmland for the 2002 tax year. Plaintiffs asser

416 F.Supp.2d 828 (2006) PERFECT 10, Plaintiff, v. GOOGLE, INC., et al., Defendants. No. CV 04-9484AHM. United States District Court, C.D. California. February 17, 2006. *829 *830 *831 Daniel J. Cooper, Beverly Hills, CA, Jeffrey N. Mausner, Berman Mausner

653 F.3d 976 (2011) PERFECT 10, INC., Plaintiff-counter-defendant-Appellant, v. GOOGLE, INC., a corporation, Defendant-counter-claimant-Appellee. No. 10-56316. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Argued and Submitted April 11, 2011. Filed August 3, 2011. *977 David Schultz (argued) and Jeffrey Neil Mau

MILAN D. SMITH, JR., Circuit Judge. Perfect 10, the publisher of an adult entertainment magazine and the owner of the subscription website perfectlO.com, alleges that CCBill and CWIE violated copyright, trademark, and state unfair competition, false advertising and right of publicity laws by providing services to websites that posted images stolen from Perfect 10’s magazine and we

Opinion CROSBY, J. In Mediterranean Construction Co. v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. (1998) 66 Cal.App.4th 257, 266-267, footnote 11 [77 Cal.Rptr.2d 781], we expressed our frustration with law-and-motion judges who “refuse to hold oral hearings on critical pretrial matters of considerable significance to the parties. . . . Fair warning: Both written and oral argument are complementary par

PER CURIAM. The Borough of Rumson appeals from a decision of Judge Joseph Small, P.J.T.C., which determined that plaintiff was entitled to farmland assessment treatment pursuant to N.J.S.A. 54:4-23.6 for the tax years 1999 and 2000, for property she owned in Rumson, specifically, as Judge Small stated, a “grand estate” named “Rohallion.” ■ The pivotal issue is whether agricultural activities at the

977 F.Supp. 1407 (1997) TELETECH CUSTOMER CARE MANAGEMENT (CALIFORNIA), INC., formerly known as Teletech Telecommunications, Incorporated, a California Corporation, Plaintiff, v. TELE-TECH COMPANY, INC., a Kentucky Corporation; and Does 1 through 100, Defendants. No. 96-8377 MRP (RCX). United States District Court, C.D. California. May 9, 1997.

ORDER The opinion filed on March 29, 2007, [481 F.3d 751], is amended as follows: On slip opinion page 3577, [481 F.3d at 767-68] line 33, after “federal intellectual property.” insert the following footnote: In its petition for rehearing, Perfect 10 claims that our decision on this point conflicts with Universal Com

470 F.Supp.2d 1072 (2006) COSMOS JEWELRY LTD, a Hawaiian Corporation, Plaintiff, v. PO SUN HON CO., a California corporation, and Alan Hon, an individual, Defendants. No. CV 03-753 CBMMCX. United States District Court, C.D. California, Western Division. July 18, 2006. As Amended February 13, 2007. *1073

21 Cal.App.4th 289 (1993) 26 Cal. Rptr.2d 153 CALIFORNIA AIR RESOURCES BOARD, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. LAWRENCE T. HART, Defendant and Respondent. Docket No. B068690. Court of Appeals of California, Second District, Division Three. December 22, 1993. *292 COUNSEL Michael P. Kenny and Diane Moritz

167 F.Supp.2d 1114 (2001) PERFECT 10, INC., Plaintiff, v. CYBERNET VENTURES, INC., et al., Defendants. No. CV 01-02595 LGB(SHX). United States District Court, C.D. California. September 26, 2001. *1115 *1116 *1117 Jeffrey N. Mausner, Laurence M. Berman, Joh

44 Cal.App.4th 1607 (1996) 52 Cal. Rptr.2d 274 SAMUEL TUCHMAN et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. AETNA CASUALTY AND SURETY COMPANY et al., Defendants and Respondents. Docket No. B077162. Court of Appeals of California, Second District, Division Four. April 30, 1996. *1609 COUNSEL Berman, Blanchar

213 F.Supp.2d 1146 (2002) PERFECT 10, INC., Plaintiff, v. CYBERNET VENTURES, INC., et al., Defendants No. CV 01-2595LGB(SHX). United States District Court, C.D. California. April 22, 2002. As Amended August 13, 2002. *1147 *1148 *1149

340 F.Supp.2d 1077 (2004) PERFECT 10, INC., Plaintiff, v. CCBILL, LLC, et al., Defendants. No. CV 02-7624 LBG(SHx). United States District Court, CD. California. June 22, 2004. *1081 Daniel J. Cooper, General Counsel, Randall B. Lewis, Associate General Counsel, Perfect 10, Inc., Beverly Hills, CA, Jeffrey N. Mausner, Berman, Mau

HAYSER, J.T.C., temporarily assigned. In this, the third and final phase of this consolidated litigation, the issue presented is whether the defendant Board of Adjustment wrongfully denied site plan approval to the defendant/crossclaimant, Revlon, Inc.1 Essential facts as to the approval denial are not in dispute. On or about March 23, 1992, defendant/crossclaimant filed an appli