Summary Of Thomas V. Hardwick, 126 Nev. Adv. Op. No. 16,
2010
Nevada Law Journal
Summary Of Thomas V. Hardwick, 126 Nev. Adv. Op. No. 16, Amanda Hogeg
Nevada Supreme Court Summaries
A multi-faceted appeal from jury verdict entered in favor of defense in wrongful death suit.
The Anatomy Of A Search: Intrusiveness And The Fourth Amendment,
2010
University of Maryland School of Law
The Anatomy Of A Search: Intrusiveness And The Fourth Amendment, Renée Mcdonald Hutchins
University of Richmond Law Review
In this essay, I contend that when evaluating the constitutionality of enhanced surveillance devices, the existing test for assessing the occurrence of a Fourth Amendment search should be modified. Specifically, I suggest that intrusiveness should be unambiguously adopted by the Court as the benchmark for assessing and defining the existence of a search under the Fourth Amendment. Moreover, intrusiveness should be clearly defined to require an examination of two factors: the functionality of a challenged form of surveillance and the potential for disclosure created by the device.
Vol. Xxii, Tab 59 - Ex. 3 - Declaration Of Kris Brewer (Counsel For Google),
2010
Google
Vol. Xxii, Tab 59 - Ex. 3 - Declaration Of Kris Brewer (Counsel For Google), Kris Brewer
Rosetta Stone v. Google (Joint Appendix)
Exhibits from the un-sealed joint appendix for Rosetta Stone Ltd., v. Google Inc., No. 10-2007, on appeal to the 4th Circuit. Issue presented: Under the Lanham Act, does the use of trademarked terms in keyword advertising result in infringement when there is evidence of actual confusion?
Vol. Xxii, Tab 59 - Ex. 2 - Declaration Of Margret M. Caruso (Counsel For Google),
2010
Google
Vol. Xxii, Tab 59 - Ex. 2 - Declaration Of Margret M. Caruso (Counsel For Google), Margret Caruso
Rosetta Stone v. Google (Joint Appendix)
Exhibits from the un-sealed joint appendix for Rosetta Stone Ltd., v. Google Inc., No. 10-2007, on appeal to the 4th Circuit. Issue presented: Under the Lanham Act, does the use of trademarked terms in keyword advertising result in infringement when there is evidence of actual confusion?
Vol. Xxii, Tab 59 - Ex. 1 - Declaration Of Jonathan B. Oblak (Counsel For Google),
2010
Google
Vol. Xxii, Tab 59 - Ex. 1 - Declaration Of Jonathan B. Oblak (Counsel For Google), Jonathan Oblak
Rosetta Stone v. Google (Joint Appendix)
Exhibits from the un-sealed joint appendix for Rosetta Stone Ltd., v. Google Inc., No. 10-2007, on appeal to the 4th Circuit. Issue presented: Under the Lanham Act, does the use of trademarked terms in keyword advertising result in infringement when there is evidence of actual confusion?
Vol. Xxii, Tab 59 - Google's Opposition To Rosetta Stone's Motion For Sanctions,
2010
Santa Clara Law
Vol. Xxii, Tab 59 - Google's Opposition To Rosetta Stone's Motion For Sanctions, Google
Rosetta Stone v. Google (Joint Appendix)
Exhibits from the un-sealed joint appendix for Rosetta Stone Ltd., v. Google Inc., No. 10-2007, on appeal to the 4th Circuit. Issue presented: Under the Lanham Act, does the use of trademarked terms in keyword advertising result in infringement when there is evidence of actual confusion?
Vol. Xxi, Tab 58 - Declaration Of Jennifer L. Spaziano In Support Of Rosetta Stone's Response To Google's Objections To Evidence And Motion To Strike,
2010
Rosetta Stone
Vol. Xxi, Tab 58 - Declaration Of Jennifer L. Spaziano In Support Of Rosetta Stone's Response To Google's Objections To Evidence And Motion To Strike, Jennifer Spaziano
Rosetta Stone v. Google (Joint Appendix)
Exhibits from the un-sealed joint appendix for Rosetta Stone Ltd., v. Google Inc., No. 10-2007, on appeal to the 4th Circuit. Issue presented: Under the Lanham Act, does the use of trademarked terms in keyword advertising result in infringement when there is evidence of actual confusion?
Vol. Xx, Tab 57 - Declaration Of Jennifer L. Spaziano In Support Of Rosetta Stone's Motion For Sanctions,
2010
Rosetta Stone
Vol. Xx, Tab 57 - Declaration Of Jennifer L. Spaziano In Support Of Rosetta Stone's Motion For Sanctions, Jennifer Spaziano
Rosetta Stone v. Google (Joint Appendix)
Exhibits from the un-sealed joint appendix for Rosetta Stone Ltd., v. Google Inc., No. 10-2007, on appeal to the 4th Circuit. Issue presented: Under the Lanham Act, does the use of trademarked terms in keyword advertising result in infringement when there is evidence of actual confusion?
Vol. Xv, Tab 52 - Rosetta Stone's Reply Brief In Support Of Its Motion For Partial Summary Judgment As To Liability,
2010
Santa Clara Law
Vol. Xv, Tab 52 - Rosetta Stone's Reply Brief In Support Of Its Motion For Partial Summary Judgment As To Liability, Rosetta Stone
Rosetta Stone v. Google (Joint Appendix)
Exhibits from the un-sealed joint appendix for Rosetta Stone Ltd., v. Google Inc., No. 10-2007, on appeal to the 4th Circuit. Issue presented: Under the Lanham Act, does the use of trademarked terms in keyword advertising result in infringement when there is evidence of actual confusion?
Vol. Ix, Tab 44 - Rosetta Stone's Opposition To Google's Motion For Summary Judgment,
2010
Santa Clara Law
Vol. Ix, Tab 44 - Rosetta Stone's Opposition To Google's Motion For Summary Judgment, Rosetta Stone
Rosetta Stone v. Google (Joint Appendix)
Exhibits from the un-sealed joint appendix for Rosetta Stone Ltd., v. Google Inc., No. 10-2007, on appeal to the 4th Circuit. Issue presented: Under the Lanham Act, does the use of trademarked terms in keyword advertising result in infringement when there is evidence of actual confusion?
Vol. Ix, Tab 45 - Rosetta Stone's Opposition To Google's Motion For Summary Judgment,
2010
Santa Clara Law
Vol. Ix, Tab 45 - Rosetta Stone's Opposition To Google's Motion For Summary Judgment, Rosetta Stone
Rosetta Stone v. Google (Joint Appendix)
Exhibits from the un-sealed joint appendix for Rosetta Stone Ltd., v. Google Inc., No. 10-2007, on appeal to the 4th Circuit. Issue presented: Under the Lanham Act, does the use of trademarked terms in keyword advertising result in infringement when there is evidence of actual confusion?
Jurisdictional Discovery In United States Federal Courts,
2010
University of Missouri School of Law
Jurisdictional Discovery In United States Federal Courts, S. I. Strong
Faculty Publications
The article begins with a discussion of the historical development and jurisprudential bases for jurisdictional discovery, then analyzes the two major structural problems with the device, namely (1) the lack of any identifiable standard regarding when jurisdictional discovery will be ordered and (2) the absence of any understanding about the proper scope of such discovery. Next, the article describes the root causes of these structural inadequacies and proposes several ways to address the root concerns, relying on a new line of Supreme Court precedent (including Ashcroft v. Iqbal) as well as analogies to other common law jurisdictions. The paper concludes …
Why Modern Evidence Law Lacks Credibility,
2010
Marquette Law School
Why Modern Evidence Law Lacks Credibility, Daniel D. Blinka
Buffalo Law Review
No abstract provided.
Appealing To The Legislature: A Comparative Analysis Of The Georgia Statutes Regarding Evidence Preservation And Access To Post-Conviction Dna Testing,
2010
University of the District of Columbia School of Law
Appealing To The Legislature: A Comparative Analysis Of The Georgia Statutes Regarding Evidence Preservation And Access To Post-Conviction Dna Testing, Joy D. Aceves-Amaya
University of the District of Columbia Law Review
DNA evidence testing is the leading cause of exonerations in criminal cases throughout the United States.2 Yet, without the preservation of evidence in these cases and the ability to subject this evidence to advancing technology in DNA testing, many claims of innocence go unheard and defendants remain incarcerated while the real perpetrators of crime go unpunished. As of September 2009, seven Georgia men have been exonerated by post-conviction DNA testing.3 Such exonerations should be considered "victories for our criminal justice system: they free the innocent, correct miscarriages of justice that undermine public confidence in our criminal justice system, and allow …
Vol. Xxi, Tab 58 - Ex. 4 - Plaintiff Rosetta Stone's Supplemental Rule 26(A)(1) Disclosures,
2010
Santa Clara Law
Vol. Xxi, Tab 58 - Ex. 4 - Plaintiff Rosetta Stone's Supplemental Rule 26(A)(1) Disclosures, Rosetta Stone
Rosetta Stone v. Google (Joint Appendix)
Exhibits from the un-sealed joint appendix for Rosetta Stone Ltd., v. Google Inc., No. 10-2007, on appeal to the 4th Circuit. Issue presented: Under the Lanham Act, does the use of trademarked terms in keyword advertising result in infringement when there is evidence of actual confusion?
Vol. Xxiv, Tab 61 - Ex. 3 - Rosetta Stone's Supplemental Response To Google's First Set Of Interrogatories,
2010
Santa Clara Law
Vol. Xxiv, Tab 61 - Ex. 3 - Rosetta Stone's Supplemental Response To Google's First Set Of Interrogatories, Rosetta Stone
Rosetta Stone v. Google (Joint Appendix)
Exhibits from the un-sealed joint appendix for Rosetta Stone Ltd., v. Google Inc., No. 10-2007, on appeal to the 4th Circuit. Issue presented: Under the Lanham Act, does the use of trademarked terms in keyword advertising result in infringement when there is evidence of actual confusion?
Vol. Xxi, Tab 58 - Ex. 5 - Deposition Of Rose Hagan (Former Google Managing Counsel - Trademarks, Jewelry Maker),
2010
Google
Vol. Xxi, Tab 58 - Ex. 5 - Deposition Of Rose Hagan (Former Google Managing Counsel - Trademarks, Jewelry Maker), Rose Hagan
Rosetta Stone v. Google (Joint Appendix)
Exhibits from the un-sealed joint appendix for Rosetta Stone Ltd., v. Google Inc., No. 10-2007, on appeal to the 4th Circuit. Issue presented: Under the Lanham Act, does the use of trademarked terms in keyword advertising result in infringement when there is evidence of actual confusion?
No Witness? No Admission: The Tale Of Testimonial Statements And Melendez-Diaz V. Massachusetts,
2010
Mercer University School of Law
No Witness? No Admission: The Tale Of Testimonial Statements And Melendez-Diaz V. Massachusetts, Jody L. Sellers
Mercer Law Review
In Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, the United States Supreme Court held that the Massachusetts trial court's admission into evidence of forensic "certificates of analysis" violated the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment. Following Crawford v. Washington, the Supreme Court held that the accused has a right to be confronted with the forensic analysts at trial unless "the analysts [are] unavailable to testify at trial" and the accused "had a prior opportunity to cross-examine" the analysts. Melendez-Diaz will have an important impact on criminal evidence procedure, specifically in regard to the potential growth of notice-and-demand statutes.
Arrival Then Denial: Interpreting §203(A) Of The Clean Air Act, Analyzing Evidentiary Challenges, & Assessing Conflicting Statutory Directives,
2010
American University Washington College of Law
Arrival Then Denial: Interpreting §203(A) Of The Clean Air Act, Analyzing Evidentiary Challenges, & Assessing Conflicting Statutory Directives, Jesse Levine
Distinguished Student Research Papers
An “arrival then denial” occurs when uncertified engines arrive at a U.S. port, but are denied entry to the U.S. by Customs & Border Protection (Customs). Why does this matter? In most cases these uncertified engines are sent back to the country of origin. However, due to resource constraints, a sizeable number of uncertified engines slip past Customs and enter the U.S. each year. Uncertified engines, without proper controls, have been estimated to emit at least 30% more emissions than their certified counterparts. Such emissions exacerbate climate change, acid rain, and air quality generally. EPA attorneys assert that their best …
Herring V. United States: The Continued Erosion Of The Exclusionary Rule,
2010
Mercer University School of Law
Herring V. United States: The Continued Erosion Of The Exclusionary Rule, Robert W. Smith
Mercer Law Review
At its inception, the exclusionary rule was relatively straightforward: The use at trial of evidence obtained from a search or seizure that violated a defendant's Fourth Amendment rights was itself a violation of the defendant's constitutional rights. But throughout the exclusionary rule's history, its source, scope, purpose, and applicability have all seen changes, ultimately limiting the situations in which evidence obtained through a Fourth Amendment violation would be suppressed. The key to the limitation of the exclusionary rule was the United States Supreme Court's eventual conclusion that the use at trial of illegally seized evidence does not always violate the …
