Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
The court held that a contract becomes binding "when there is a meeting of the minds and consideration is exchanged." Since the plaintiffs were not given sufficient opportunity to review the arbitration clause in the SmartDownload EULA, Netscape could not compel that technique for resolving the present dispute. According to the court, the ...
Zeran v. America Online, Inc., 129 F.3d 327 (4th Cir. 1997), [2] is a case in which the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit determined the immunity of Internet service providers for wrongs committed by their users under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act.
A lawyer traditionally starts an oral argument to any appellate court with the words "May it please the court." After an appeal is heard, the "mandate" is a formal notice of a decision by a court of appeal; this notice is transmitted to the trial court and, when filed by the clerk of the trial court, constitutes the final judgment on the case ...
Officials had warned they would appeal if the judge refused to give investigators access to classified records during a review that could take months. Justice Department asks appeals court for ...
Verizon Communications Inc. v. Federal Communications Commission, 740 F.3d 623 (D.C. Cir., 2014), was a case at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit vacating portions of the FCC Open Internet Order of 2010, which the court determined could only be applied to common carriers and not to Internet service providers. [1]
An exception exists when this situation arises in one of the now-rare cases brought directly to the Supreme Court on appeal from a United States District Court; in this situation, the case is referred to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the corresponding circuit for a final decision there by either the Court of Appeals sitting en banc, or a panel ...
The Montana Supreme Court struck down the Parental Consent for Abortion Act in 2024, ruling it violates a minor’s fundamental right to privacy under the state constitution by conditioning access ...
Google's lawyer argued to the San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that a trial judge made legal errors in the antitrust case that unfairly benefited Epic Games.