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. 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?
Development Of A Dna Database In Ireland — Assessing The Proposed Legislation,
2010
University of Aberdeen
Development Of A Dna Database In Ireland — Assessing The Proposed Legislation, Liz Campbell
Liz Campbell
The collection and retention of DNA samples are seen universally as crucial for purposes of criminal investigation and prosecution, as a means of excluding innocent suspects, and of exonerating the wrongfully convicted. However, there is less consistency across jurisdictions regarding whose DNA should be obtained by the state and for how long it should be stored. The need for a measured approach in this context is underlined by the “exceptionalism” of genetic material, given the depth and sensitivity of the information contained within, and the potential for “function creep”, whereby state powers insidiously increase and data gathered for one purpose …
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.
Omg! Evidence Challenges In An Electronic World,
2010
University of Oklahoma College of Law
Omg! Evidence Challenges In An Electronic World, Mary Sue Backus
Mary Sue Backus
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?
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 …
No Longer The Right To Remain Silent: Cross-Examining Forensic Analyst Testimony,
2010
Brigham Young University Law School
No Longer The Right To Remain Silent: Cross-Examining Forensic Analyst Testimony, Casey Unwin
BYU Law Review
No abstract provided.
Juror Testimony Of Racial Bias In Jury Deliberations:
United States V. Benally And The Obstacle Of Federal
Rule Of Evidence 606(B) ,
2010
Brigham Young University Law School
Juror Testimony Of Racial Bias In Jury Deliberations: United States V. Benally And The Obstacle Of Federal Rule Of Evidence 606(B) , Brandon C. Pond
BYU Law Review
No abstract provided.
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.
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 …
Crossing Over: Why Attorneys (And Judges) Should Not Be Able To Cross-Examine Witnesses Regarding Their Immigration Statuses For Impeachment Purposes,
2010
Northwestern Pritzker School of Law
Crossing Over: Why Attorneys (And Judges) Should Not Be Able To Cross-Examine Witnesses Regarding Their Immigration Statuses For Impeachment Purposes, Colin Miller
NULR Online
You are sitting in an empty bar (in a town you’ve never before visited), drinking a Bacardi with a soft-spoken acquaintance you barely know. After an hour, a third individual walks into the tavern and sits by himself, and you ask your acquaintance who the new man is. “Be careful of that guy,” you are told. “He is a man with a past.” A few minutes later, a fourth person enters the bar; he also sits alone. You ask your acquaintance who this new individual is. “Be careful of that guy, too,” he says. “He is a man with no …
