Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
Viacom International, Inc. v. YouTube, Inc., 676 F.3d 19 (2nd Cir., 2012), was a United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit decision regarding liability for copyright infringement committed by the users of an online video hosting platform. [1]
Sherri Papini kidnapping hoax. Sherri Papini is an American woman who disappeared on November 2, 2016, reportedly while out jogging a mile from her home in Redding, California. [1] Papini was 34 years old at the time. She reappeared three weeks later on Thanksgiving Day, November 24, having been reportedly freed by her captors at 4:30 that ...
Activision Blizzard is a current lawsuit filed by the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing (DFEH), now the Civil Rights Department (CRD) against video game developer Activision Blizzard in July 2021. The lawsuit asserts that management of Activision Blizzard allowed and at times encouraged sexual misconduct towards female ...
July 9, 2024 at 1:58 PM. By Blake Brittain. WASHINGTON (Reuters) -A 97-year-old judge who was suspended from a U.S. appellate court last year after being accused of unfitness due to cognitive and ...
On October 9, 2019, 24 poker players filed a $30 million class-action lawsuit against Postle, Stones Gambling Hall and its poker and livestream manager Justin "JRK" Kuraitis. In June 2020, Federal Judge William B. Shubb dismissed the lawsuit against all three defendants, citing a very old California law.
California Attorney General Rob Bonta is on a collision course with Amazon, filing a lawsuit Wednesday that alleges the company is violating state antitrust law.
BRAVO/YouTube Forget Switzerland, Dolores Catania is the MVP of The Real Housewives of New Jersey season 14. Dolores, 53, came in hot within the first 10 minutes of the Bravo show’s season 14 ...
Oral arguments were heard on March 19, 2024. The case was argued, on behalf of Diaz, by Jeffrey L. Fisher and, on behalf of the United States, by Matthew Guarnieri. On June 20, 2024, the court ruled 6-3 that the expert testimony of "most people" is not an opinion on the "defendant" and is admissible under the Federal Rules of Evidence.