Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

Law Commons

Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

Articles 1 - 7 of 7

Full-Text Articles in Law

Petition For A Writ Of Certiorari. Kirk V. Invesco, Limited, 138 S.Ct. 1164 (2018) (No. 17-762), 2017 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs Lexis 4618, 2017 Wl 5665441, Eric Schnapper, Nitin Sud Nov 2017

Petition For A Writ Of Certiorari. Kirk V. Invesco, Limited, 138 S.Ct. 1164 (2018) (No. 17-762), 2017 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs Lexis 4618, 2017 Wl 5665441, Eric Schnapper, Nitin Sud

Court Briefs

QUESTION PRESENTED The Fair Labor Standards Act provides that covered employees who work more than 40 hours in a week must generally be paid overtime at a rate one and one-half times their regular rate. To assure compliance with that overtime rule, the Act and governing regulations require employers to maintain records of all hours worked by covered employees. If an employer has failed to keep the legally required records, the burden on the employee under Anderson v. Mt. Clemens Pottery Co. is simply to "produce[] sufficient evidence to show the amount and extent of that work as a matter …


Reply Brief. Crouse V. Caldwell, 138 S.Ct. 470 (2017) (No. 17-242), Eric Schnapper, Steven H. Goldblatt, Shon Hopwood, Marybeth Mullaney, Jennifer Munter Stark Oct 2017

Reply Brief. Crouse V. Caldwell, 138 S.Ct. 470 (2017) (No. 17-242), Eric Schnapper, Steven H. Goldblatt, Shon Hopwood, Marybeth Mullaney, Jennifer Munter Stark

Court Briefs

QUESTIONS PRESENTED (1) When disputes of fact arise regarding whether speech by a public employee is protected by the First Amendment, should those factual issues be resolved by a trier of fact (the rule in the Second, Third, Sixth, Eighth and Tenth Circuits), or by the court as a matter of constitutional law (the rule in the Fourth Circuit)? (2) When a government employee engages in speech on a subject of public concern, and a court applying Pickering balances the First Amendment interest against any contrary interests of the employer, should the extent of that First Amendment interest be “lessened” …


Brief Of Amici Curiae On Behalf Of Intellectual Property Professors In Support Of Appellant And In Support Of Reversal, Mark Mckenna, Rebecca Tushnet Sep 2017

Brief Of Amici Curiae On Behalf Of Intellectual Property Professors In Support Of Appellant And In Support Of Reversal, Mark Mckenna, Rebecca Tushnet

Court Briefs

ASTM’s fundamental complaint is about unauthorized use of its intangible content—the standards for which it claims copyright ownership. Dastar unambiguously holds, however, that only confusion regarding the source of physical goods is actionable under the Lanham Act; confusion regarding the authorship of the standards or their authorization is not actionable. ASTM cannot avoid Dastar just because Public Resource creates digital copies of those standards. Consumers encounter the ASTM marks only as part of the standards, into which ATSM chose to embed the marks. As a result, any “confusion” could only be the result of the content itself. Dastar teaches that …


Petition For A Writ Of Certiorari, Crouse V. Caldwell, 138 S.Ct. 470 (2017) (No. 17-242), Eric Schnapper, Steven H. Goldblatt, Shon Hopwood, Marybeth Mullaney, Jennifer Munter Stark Aug 2017

Petition For A Writ Of Certiorari, Crouse V. Caldwell, 138 S.Ct. 470 (2017) (No. 17-242), Eric Schnapper, Steven H. Goldblatt, Shon Hopwood, Marybeth Mullaney, Jennifer Munter Stark

Court Briefs

QUESTIONS PRESENTED (1) When disputes of fact arise regarding whether speech by a public employee is protected by the First Amendment, should those factual issues be resolved by a trier of fact (the rule in the Second, Third, Sixth, Eighth and Tenth Circuits), or by the court as a matter of constitutional law (the rule in the Fourth Circuit)? (2) When a government employee engages in speech on a subject of public concern, and a court applying Pickering balances the First Amendment interest against any contrary interests of the employer, should the extent of that First Amendment interest be “lessened” …


Brief Of Amici Curiae Intellectual Property Law Professors In Favor Of Judgement As A Matter Of Law, Mark Mckenna, Rebecca Tushnet, John A. Conway Jun 2017

Brief Of Amici Curiae Intellectual Property Law Professors In Favor Of Judgement As A Matter Of Law, Mark Mckenna, Rebecca Tushnet, John A. Conway

Court Briefs

Plaintiff’s false designation of origin and false endorsement claims, such as they are, rest on the assertion that defendants falsely represented themselves as the origin of intellectual property on which the Oculus Rift is based. Those claims are barred by Dastar v. Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp., 539 U.S. 23 (2003), which holds that only confusion regarding the origin of physical goods is actionable under the Lanham Act.


Petitioner's Reply Brief. Riley V. Elkhart Community Schools, 137 S.Ct. 1328 (No. 16-533), 2017 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs Lexis 593, 2017 Wl 712023, Eric Schnapper, Robin Remley Feb 2017

Petitioner's Reply Brief. Riley V. Elkhart Community Schools, 137 S.Ct. 1328 (No. 16-533), 2017 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs Lexis 593, 2017 Wl 712023, Eric Schnapper, Robin Remley

Court Briefs

QUESTIONS PRESENTED (1) To establish a prima facie case of discrimination in promotion or hiring, is a plaintiff required to show that the position in question was filled by someone outside his or her protected group? (2) In Patterson v. McLean Credit Union, this Court held that in a case of alleged discrimination in hiring or promotion, a plaintiff “might seek to demonstrate that [the employer's] claim to have promoted a better qualified applicant was pretextual by showing that she was in fact better qualified than the person chosen for the position.” Ash v. Tyson Foods, Inc. recognized that the …


Brief For Respondents. County Of Los Angeles V. Mendez, 137 S.Ct. 1539 (2017) (No. 16-3690), 2017 Wl 696103, Eric Schnapper, Rachel Lee, Leonard J. Feldman, Sara Berry Feb 2017

Brief For Respondents. County Of Los Angeles V. Mendez, 137 S.Ct. 1539 (2017) (No. 16-3690), 2017 Wl 696103, Eric Schnapper, Rachel Lee, Leonard J. Feldman, Sara Berry

Court Briefs

QUESTIONS PRESENTED

1. Does the legal framework set out in Grnham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (1989), apply to actions by police that foreseeably create a need for the use of force?

2. In an action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, where a house search that violates the Fourth Amendment results in the shooting of an innocent resident who did not know that the intruders were sheriff’s deputies, does a resident’s nonculpable response to the intrusion constitute a superseding cause that bars relief for the residents’ injuri