Based on the little I have heard about the film industry, this could be a damning condemnation of Mr Woods' suit. The film industry appears from this great distance to be filled with cocaine consumers. If the plaintiff is much involved in that industry, to the point of being deemed an exemplar, he could well be a cocaine consumer.
I am informed that cocaine does not make its consumers smarter or wittier. Neither does it make the consumers more attractive to the appropriate sex except to the extent that a particular member of the appropriate sex may also be seeking cocaine.
All of which leads to an interesting question. If this gets past the anti-SLAPP motion, does Mr Woods get to pee in a cup? Normally I would not expect that to be legitimate discovery, but it appears that his lawyer may have opened the door.
I think lawyers should (perhaps be required to) warn plaintiffs of the potential damages they could face when they absolutely insist on going forward with a frivolous lawsuit
Yes, and I suspect these are fairly common. The Federal rules provide for a Rule 11 motion for sanctions. Florida provides this by statute. Check your state law for corresponding details, perhaps by tracking how the Federal rules flow into your state rules.
The ethics rules generally prohibit lawyers from promoting cases known to be meritless, though an argument for application of or extension of existing law is an exception. That is how law evolves: compare Pace v. Alabama, 106 U.S. 583 (1883), to Loving v. Virgina, 388 U.S. 1 (1967). Or, the classic case, Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U.S. 537, to the several ``Dining Car'' cases,or Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483.
In this case, I cannot see any plausible explanation for the atty taking the city's case. There is no claim that present law is incorrect, nor any principle to be extended to a new area. The attorney for the city should, however, be grateful for the $50,000.00.
In a situation like this, I am glad not to represent the city.
What people -now- call an API has been called different things through the ages ("interface", "system subroutine library", "library function", "supervisor call", etc)
There, I think that's probably as good a demonstration of the problem as you'll find anywhere. In one sentence we have managed to conflate non-copyrightable API, copyrightable implementation of API, and some other stuff. Such confusion does wonders for technically uninformed judges in the federal appeals courts.
They may know the law, but it is patent that they do not understand computing.
Simple example trying to get it fairly close to correct, the classic read(2) system call on something that looks similar to a real machine:
int read(int fd, char *buf, int sz); /* here is the API */
/* here is part of a hypothetical implementation */ mov 6(sp), r1 mov 8(sp), r2 mov 10(sp), r3 trap #2 /* the actual stuff takes place in the supervisor call */
I should mention that 3 years of law school normally includes a grand total of zero hours of understanding how to program computers. Some of the more advanced students will get an extra 50% more programming education. When the beaks on the CAFC went through law school, many years ago, they only got about half this much programming experience.
Without some analysis of the covenant, and whether it is an agreement with consideration on both sides or just a paper from the city, it is hard to say how much protection it would offer. It may eliminate the case and controversy, if it releases the plaintiff and everyone in any wise associated with him, now and forever. Otherwise, next week's Newcorp Sign Pictures, LLC, of which he is the president, has the same issue and he still has the same need for a declaration.
This sort of problem evades review and is likely to recur. Courts sometimes address such even when the original controversy is moot.
If the covenant works and is broad enough to eliminate his case and controversy, then we need to wait for Newcorp Free Automatic Sign Image Sublicensing, LLC, to see how this works out.
The laws in Texas may not be the laws we are used to in Florida. Each state has its own law; I think there are a few which modeled their law on Florida.
Such a request for money also happens in Florida, but occasionally the records-seeker is referred to the First Amendment Foundation. There is case law concerning reasonableness of charges in Florida.
Our problem is that, every year, the legislature enacts some tens of new exemptions. They now number over a thousand. My favorite example is a campaign treasurer's report which redacted the address of the campaign treasurer. It was probably perfectly legal under the statute.
Another exemption says you can no longer review records to see if your city manager or other high-level officials live in the city they govern.
The court shall award the prevailing party reasonable attorney fees and costs incurred in connection with a claim that an action was filed in violation of this section.
From Ch 2015-70, Laws of Florida.
File your anti-SLAPP motion. Lose, perhaps because the judge is reluctant to grant judgment that early in the case. The SLAPPer is now entitled to fees.
Not the first time, and probably not the last, but I have to remind people how close Tallahassee is to Chattahoochee. Or maybe, with work product like this, I do not have to remind people because it is fairly obvious.
While Butts is the obvious target of the criticism, the suit was filed on behalf of the city as a municipal corporation. That means that either the city delegated the power to sue, or the entire commission had to vote for this suit.
I express no view as to which of these options is dumber.
What is the legal definition of obscenity in the US?
The standard definition is given by Justice Stewart in his concurring opinion in Jacobellis v. Ohio, 378 US 184,197 (US 1964): ``I know it when I see it''. Thus the job of any seller or distributor is to revive the long-deceased in order to show the material to him and see if he deems it unclean.
Not sure this is a real problem. Last I heard, live hockey games lost in the ratings to reruns of poker tournaments.
At some point the NHL may want to investigate making itself relevant. But why bother. Surely they can cadge a half-dollar from someone for the right to periscope stream a zamboni scraping the ice during the intermission.
Depends on how she brings it. She can surely have an action for uncompensated taking against the officers directly, and may also have a claim against their agency.
If the claim is against the officers, then they may bear the cost of the device. Split amongst them, it is probably not a great price.
She might also have a claim for battery if she can make out a clearly established right not to be battered by armed thugs. I presume that they and their agency will argue that such a right is not well established, and many federal judges will agree.
I imagine that this book will sell tonnes more copies as a result!
Not so sure of that. If it is removed from the market it will be hard for the author to sell many copies. I have to think that someone screwed up pretty badly to grab someone's engagement/wedding pic and not clear the rights.
Version 2, with a properly licensed photo, may get less publicity.