what was apollo media corp v us 1999?
82696
contracted to spin fiction & direct public beliefs & opinions. the rendon group of the nineties.\nhttp://weekendinterviewshow.com/InterviewDisplay.aspx?i=135\nhttp://weekendinterviewshow.com/InterviewDisplay.aspx?i=140\nhttp://www.philipdru.com/griffin3_stream.html
984580
Yes, you can take legal action for all of the above cases, but whether it is worth the time and effort rest in your hands. Btw, the media cannot release information relevant to a current trial or a case waiting for trial if the information released contains confidential evidences or information, such as the place of residence or name of witnesses who does not wish to be revealed.
1178351
lawsuit closed it down because of copyright infringement
266317
You should consult an entertainment lawyer that specializes in music industry.\n\nAlso as a side note.. Do you really want to compete with iTunes?
458424
American Ice Company v. Hunter, Appellant.\nNo. 267, Oct. T., 1914\nSUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA\n60 Pa. Super. 311, *; 1915 Pa. Super. LEXIS 187, ** \n60 Pa. Super. 311; 1915 Pa. Super. LEXIS 187\n\nAre you looking for the whole case?
729190
There is prior case law on this issue as it has been tried.\n\nGamers tried fist by filing suit against Sony many years ago for an "addiction" to Ever Quest.  \n\nDo some research on the net and you will find out all you need to know.  But, don't get your hopes up... Courts won't side with you for game addictions.
619152
Newsgrounds has to accept all liability when they have control of an item. In your case you are talking about an item that originated from Nintendo corporation. It's copywrite or can be interpreted as "trade dress" which means it's part of or even looks like Nintendo proprietary material.\n\n9 times out 10 it's all frivolous but who would lock horns with Nintendo and then find out it is really the tenth. \n\nIf Newsgrounds has been tied up in a "takedown" or litigation they might be very suspicious of anything and could easily be running a zero tolerance policy. Yes it's a pain in the rear but that's because it's also a pain in the rear for Newsground as well.\n\nEmail to them and apologize you were unaware of the sensitivity of the material, there's a good chance they might reinstate your privileges or you might have to serve out a period of time before reinstatement.\n\nOK to stop it happening again, stay away from anything that has a name or any similarity to commercial material. It's a pain when that's where the interest is but good exercise if your into music to get a bit of music generating software and create your own sequencing and music from scratch to substitute for commercial material. Then give it a name like PVT1 so it can't be construed as even a copywrite name.
3151
I wasn't until I read the New York Times article.  It seams that there could have been a judge involved that did could have issued warrents.  Also, they did suspend it when they thought they were crossing the line.  I also did some more digging and found out that the NY times sat on the story for a year.  If something illegal was happening the NY Times would have run the story earlier.  So No I don't think that the President or the NSA did anything wrong at this point.
245297
The citations come from the case Faegre & Benson, LLP v. Purdy, from April 27, 2005.  Molly K. Beutz is a member of counsel for the law firm Faegre & Boston.  In that case, "Plaintiffs, law firm and lawyer, alleged that defendant, alleged contemnor, registered numerous internet domain names that were confusingly similar to the law firms protected mark, appropriated a nickname of the lawyer to create a another confusingly website, and published defamatory statements on the websites; and that he did so in violation of specific court orders and a preliminary injunction and temporary restraining order."\n\nThe context is as follows: "Plaintiff John Hinderaker publishes a popular internet blog -- or web log -- entitled 'Power Line,' located at powerlineblog.com, under the pseudonym 'Hindrocket.' Hinderaker Decl. P 5. On September 13, 2004, a statement appeared on the discussion board on pleasedontkillyourbaby.com/Discussion that purported to be by Hinderaker. Exh. 107 to Seventh Beutz Decl. Hinderaker did not create or authorize use of the posting attributed to his name. Hinderaker Decl. P 3."\n\nExh. 107 refers to Exhibit 107, as marked in the case and approved by the court.  "to Seventh Beutz Decl." reverse to the statement made in the seventh declaration of the attorney Beutz made in that exhibit.\n\nReally it's not a very interesting element of the case, but it at least explains what this abbreviated term means.
588557
In Ontario, that is correct since a 1996 Court of Appeal decision (Regina v. Jacob).  I believe that there was a similar ruling in New York in the early 90s.
153223
Milton D. Korman argued the cause for respondents in No. 4. With him on the brief were Vernon E. West, Chester H. Gray and Lyman J. Umstead. [349 U.S. 294, 297]  \n\nJoseph Donald Craven, Attorney General of Delaware, argued the cause for petitioners in No. 5. On the brief were H. Albert Young, then Attorney General, Clarence W. Taylor, Deputy Attorney General, and Andrew D. Christie, Special Deputy to the Attorney General. \n\nIn response to the Court's invitation, 347 U.S. 483, 495-496, Solicitor General Sobeloff participated in the oral argument for the United States. With him on the brief were Attorney General Brownell, Assistant Attorney General Rankin, Philip Elman, Ralph S. Spritzer and Alan S. Rosenthal.
192052
What kind of case is it?\nEmployment?  Something that happened at the McDonalds?
368917
Again, from the documentary 'Corporation' a federal court ruled in a wrongful termination law suit that lying on television when not under any sort of oath or affirmation is NOT against the law.\n\nFox News allegedly had ordered some reporters to report misleading information about medical procedures for increasing the output of dairy cows, specifically to state the procedure was safe when that was not yet proven. When the reporters refused, they were fired. They filed lawsuit under the whistle blower federal law which protects employees who refuse to follow orders which are against the law. The Federal Judge ruled in favor of Fox, stating that lying on television is NOT against the law, and thus there is no protection for an employee who refuses to obey legal but unethical orders.\n\nAny statements that President Bush may have made, whether they were misleading as his critics would have us believe or a reasonable difference of opinion as his defenders would have us believe, were not under any specific oath or affirmation and thus are not a violation of any law. The Constitution states that the President can only be impeached for 'high crimes or misdemeanors.'\n\nPresident Clinton was impeached because of statements that were made while under oath in an ongoing trial, not for his statement in the press conference. While it is obvious that the actions he took during the affair were specifically done so in his own mind he could pretend he was not having 'sexual relations,' the majority of Americans would have to admit the actions were certainly close enough!
196122
The proper cite is "Bodewig v. K-Mart, Inc., 635 P.2d 657 (Ore. App. 1981)" or Bodewig v. K-Mart, Inc., 54 Or App 480, 635 P2d 657 (1981), rev den, 292 Or 450 (1982). Because it is an appelate court decision, you may have to go to the law library if you don't have access to Lexis or Westlaw to look at the published opinion. It is published in the Pacific Reporter 2d and the Oregan Appelate Reporter.
989031
The first link gives you the actual U.S. v. Hitchcock case.\n\nAnother link you may want in the future, if you want Supreme Court cases, is below the first.
81730
Europe says it is, but practically it is not. UK has a strong censorship, so do Austria and Germany. In these countries many journalists have been sent to jail for things they've said or published (Irving is only the latest issue). Italy and Belgium too have laws that frown upon certain subject that can be released in the media, while in other countries (although there's no law) various coercions are imposed on the press by means of media trusts (media trusts owners are subjected to heavy pressure to allow or dissalow publication of articles on certain issues).\nThe US goes against free speech too (the number of jailed press members imprisoned for articles related to the US invasion of Iraq or US violations of human right isn't exately small).
231676
What state?  What ruling?