Warning: file_put_contents(): Only 0 of 2107 bytes written, possibly out of free disk space in /home/grpubne/public_html/index.php on line 2
First Amendment - Anti-SLAPP - California Constitution - grpub.net

First Amendment - Anti-SLAPP - California Constitution - grpub.net

First Amendment


Warning: file_put_contents(): Only 0 of 11429 bytes written, possibly out of free disk space in /home/grpubne/public_html/rss/index.php on line 46

Warning: Invalid argument supplied for foreach() in /home/grpubne/public_html/rss/index.php on line 76

Warning: Invalid argument supplied for foreach() in /home/grpubne/public_html/rss/index.php on line 76
The plaintiff is Rogan O’Handley, a California lawyer with elite credentials (UChicago Law, practice experience as a corporate finance and entertainment attorney) who nevertheless jumped onto the anti-“elites” Trump train and embraced Trump’s Big Lie that the 2020 election was stolen from him. (You’ll need some anti-nausea medicine to read this puff piece profiling him). O’Handley uses the online moniker “DC_Draino” (Drain the Swamp, get it?), and he had 400k+ followers at Twitter–until Twitter ultimately kicked him off for earning 5 strikes. His lawsuit focuses on the interaction between two efforts to reduce election misinformation online. First, Twitter adopted a “Civic Integrity Policy” and created a “Partner Support Portal,” a fast lane for governments and other trusted sources to report problematic election-related tweets. Second, California established an Office of Election Cybersecurity…
Robinhood and similar investment apps bear a disturbing resemblance to video slot machines. This kind of “gamified” product design drives investors to lose money by overtrading. But if regulators try to cure the problem by de-gamifying the software, they will pick a First Amendment fight that securities law cannot afford. 
Federal judge rules Virginia’s restricted access to court records violates First Amendment - January 16, 2022 - Marie Feyche | U. Pittsburgh School of Law, US
A district court judge in Virginia on Friday found Virginia’s online civil court system violated First Amendment rights of the press and public because of the system’s restricted access to newly filed civil complaints. The Officer of the Court Remote Access (OCRA) system makes civil filings available to attorneys through a per-court subscription fee. Authorized users can access filings from the courts they are subscribed to. The public and news outlets cannot use OCRA. Instead, non-attorneys need to physically go to the courts to access the documents. Approximately 90 of the 120 courts in Virginia use OCRA. Courthouse News Services (CNS) filed the lawsuit against Karl R. Hade, executive secretary of the Supreme Court of Virginia, and Jacqueline C. Smith, clerk of the Circuit Court for Prince William County, VA. In the lawsuit, CNS asserted that Hade and Smith have power to grant the public and news outlets digital access to civil complaints and that withholding this…
SCOTUS adds five more cases to Spring 2022 docket - January 16, 2022 - Ronald Karls | U. Pittsburgh School of Law, US
The Supreme Court on Friday added five more cases to its docket. Each of the five cases are likely to be argued in the court’s April argument session. Kennedy v. Bremerton School District addresses whether a public-school football coach who says a brief, quiet, but highly visible prayer at midfield after a football game is engaging in speech that lacks First Amendment protection due to Establishment clause issues. Vega v. Tekoh addresses whether an officer can be sued for failing to provide Miranda warnings. The Ninth Circuit issued a 5-4 decision, finding that officers can face civil penalties for failing to advise a suspect of their right to silence and legal counsel. Nance v. Ward raises the issue of whether a prisoner can be executed by means that are not authorized by statute when the authorized means of execution, lethal injection, is potentially unconstitutional. Prisoner and petitioner Michael Nance has severely compromised veins and other underlying conditions…
Columbia Global Freedom of Expression seeks to contribute to the development of an integrated and progressive jurisprudence and understanding on freedom of expression and information around the world.  It maintains an extensive database of international case law. This is its newsletter dealing with recent developments  in the field. Community Highlights and Recent News ● Mozilla, Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University, and Cybersecurity for Democracy are co-hosting a virtual panel “Pursuing Platform Transparency in 2022.” The panel features four experts from civil society who will present a three-pronged approach for making platform transparency a reality. Watch Wednesday 19 January from 11am – 12pm EST on Mozilla Foundation’s Twitter and YouTube. ● ARTICLE 19, IFEX and a coalition of media freedom organizations have called on the Prime Minister of Malta to…
In a decision dealing with prior restraints on speech, the First District Appellate Court recently held that the trial court overstepped federal and state constitutional bounds when it ordered a company and its president to refrain from making any future online statements about a vendor the company had hired. The First District vacated the order entered by Cook County Circuit Judge Diane M. Shelley and issued an opinion explaining why the trial court’s order violated longstanding constitutional principles of free speech. The plaintiff, Same Condition, LLC is a company that sought to create a web-based, medical patient-centered software application. Same Condition’s president, Munish Kumar, was a counter-defendant in the suit. Same Condition hired the defendant, Codal, Inc., to develop its software application. Codal allegedly failed to deliver the software application on time and when it did, Same Condition found the software to be unacceptable. In May 2019, Same…

Anti-SLAPP


Warning: file_put_contents(): Only 0 of 12263 bytes written, possibly out of free disk space in /home/grpubne/public_html/rss/index.php on line 46

Warning: Invalid argument supplied for foreach() in /home/grpubne/public_html/rss/index.php on line 76

Warning: Invalid argument supplied for foreach() in /home/grpubne/public_html/rss/index.php on line 76
In many cases when you are sued for defamation and present a claim to your homeowner’s insurance company, the company may agreed to defend you under a “reservation of rights.” This means that there is a question as to whether the company is required to cover you under the policy, i.e. the agreement between you and the insurance company. The reason insurance companies do this is because the duty to defend claims is broader than the duty to indemnify claims. Insurance companies know that coverage disputes do not necessarily relieve the insurance company from having to defend you. If an insurance company properly and timely reserves their right to dispute coverage later, and if they are correct, they will not be bound by a judgment against you. What this means in practical terms is that the insurance company will agree to pay for your legal defense and any costs associated with defending the lawsuit. However, they will not agree to indemnify you, which means…
On December 27, 2021, the California Court of Appeal issued two decisions addressing whether claims arising from statements made in filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) fall within California’s statute designed to deter “strategic lawsuits against public participation,” or “SLAPPs,” arising from protected speech.  In Sugarman v. Benett, No. B307753, 2021 WL 6111725  (Cal. App. Dec. 27, 2021) (“Benett”), and Sugarman v. Brown, No. B308318, 2021 WL 6111718 (Cal. App. Dec. 27, 2021) (“Brown”), the Court held that state law claims arising out of disclosures in federal SEC filings may be subject to California’s anti-SLAPP statute, giving defendants a powerful tool to dispose meritless claims early in the process. Benett and Brown stem from the same underlying complaint, brought by the former CEO of Banc of California (“Banc”) and his trust (collectively…
Columbia Global Freedom of Expression seeks to contribute to the development of an integrated and progressive jurisprudence and understanding on freedom of expression and information around the world.  It maintains an extensive database of international case law. This is its newsletter dealing with recent developments  in the field. Community Highlights and Recent News ● Dirk Voorhoof, writing for Inforrm’s Blog, discusses a trio of recent criminal defamation suits from Belgium in “Anti-SLAPP: Professor goes free after vexatious and frivolous suit.” The three cases were brought by leaders of anti-vax organizations against a virologist, a journalist and an academic for critical comments made during interviews and on social media. While Courts in two cases found no defamation, only the third recognized a counterclaim for vexatious and frivolous litigation – aka Strategic Litigation Against Public Participation or…
2021 CEQA 4th QUARTER REVIEW - January 5, 2022 - Abbott & Kindermann, William W. Abbott, Diane G. Kindermann, Glen C. Hansen and Daniel S. Cucchi
Welcome to Abbott & Kindermann’s 2021 4th Quarter cumulative CEQA update. This summary provides links to more in-depth case write-ups on the firm’s blog. The case names of the newest decisions start with Section 3 and are denoted by bold italic fonts. 2020 CEQA UPDATE To read the 2020 cumulative CEQA review, click here: https://blog.aklandlaw.com/2021/01/articles/ceqa/2020-ceqa-4th-quarter-review/ CASES PENDING AT THE CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT There is 1 CEQA case pending at the California Supreme Court. The case and the Court’s summary is as follows: County of Butte v. Department of Water Resources, S258574. (C071785; 39 Cal.App.5th 708; Yolo County Superior Court; CVCV091258.) Petition for review after the Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal in an action for writ of administrative mandate. This case presents the following issues: (1) To what extent does the Federal Power Act (16 U.S.C. § 791a et seq.) preempt application of the California…
It is rare in Belgium for people who take part in the public debate, such as journalists and academics, to have to defend themselves in criminal court in a private prosecution for defamation. Three times in a row, this type of criminal procedure has recently proven to have little or no chance of success and mainly serves to legally harass the defendant. A recent judgment acquitting virologist Marc Van Ranst of criminal defamation therefore condemned the plaintiff for vexatious and frivolous litigation. Earlier this year, the virologist Prof. Marc van Ranst (University of Leuven) was summoned before the criminal court in Mechelen because of some critical remarks in a newspaper interview and in a message on Twitter addressed to Willem Engel, the founder of the Dutch anti-vax organisation Viruswaanzin (‘Virus Madness’, later renamed Viruswaarheid, ‘Virus truth’). Engel, represented in these proceedings by the Ghent lawyer Mr. Michael Verstraeten, argued…
2021 Trade Secrets Webinar Series: Takeaways & Recordings - December 21, 2021 - Seyfarth Shaw LLP
Throughout 2021, our dedicated Trade Secrets, Computer Fraud & Non-Competes Practice Group hosted a series of CLE webinars that addressed significant trade secret and restrictive covenant issues facing clients today. This year’s series included: 2020 Year in Review: What You Need to Know about the Recent Cases and Developments in Trade Secrets, Non-Competes, and Computer Fraud Law Employee Termination & Data Repatriation in the Remote Work Environment The Connection Between Wage and Hour & Restrictive Covenant Law How and Why Texas is Different When it Comes to Trade Secrets and Restrictive Covenants Anatomy of an M&A Transaction: How to Issue Spot for Non-Compete, Trade Secrets/Confidential Information, and Intellectual Capital Concerns Overview of Non-Compete Legislation and Enforcement Issues from 2021 As a conclusion to our 2021 webinar series, we compiled a list of key takeaway points for each program. For those clients who missed any of the programs…

California Constitution


Warning: file_put_contents(): Only 0 of 12123 bytes written, possibly out of free disk space in /home/grpubne/public_html/rss/index.php on line 46

Warning: Invalid argument supplied for foreach() in /home/grpubne/public_html/rss/index.php on line 76

Warning: Invalid argument supplied for foreach() in /home/grpubne/public_html/rss/index.php on line 76
It's a lawsuit by the San Diego Unified School District against the State of California, so there are big players involved.  It's also a suit that involves a fair piece of money; the litigation is about $1.5 billion in school funding that California provided to various school districts in 2017 and 2018.  California says that cash basically wiped out all of its (massive) financial obligations to the school districts, but the districts say that violates the California Constitution.  Hence the lawsuit.San Diego Unified is a big-ticket client itself, but it's not just them suing; it's also San Jose Unified and a half-dozen other school districts as well.  In short, this is no small litigation.  California's represented by the Attorney General.  Who's representing the school districts?According to the opinion, anyway, a sole practitioner.That just seemed somewhat implausible to me.  How would a sole practitioner have…
Gun owners seek injunction against California law authorizing sharing of personal information for research - January 6, 2022 - Angela Mauroni | U. Pittsburgh School of Law, US
An group of anonymous gun owners (“the plaintiffs”) filed a federal Complaint Wednesday against California Attorney General (AG) Rob Bonta to prevent enforcement of Assembly Bill 171 (AB171), signed into law by Governor Gavin Newsom in September, which allows the state to share personal information of gun owners with gun violence research organizations. The plaintiffs allege that the law is unconstitutional under Article IV of the California Constitution, and the Second and Fourteenth Amendments of the US Constitution. The plaintiffs entered personal information into a state registry maintained by the California Department of Justice called the Automated Firearms System in accordance with California law for owning and/or possessing a firearm. According to the Complaint, that personal information includes “name, address, place of birth, telephone number, occupation, California driver’s license or ID number, race, sex, height, weight, hair color, eye…
No, California law enforcement officers do not need probable cause to stop a motorist at a DUI sobriety checkpoint. You could get arrested legally at a DUI sobriety checkpoint without the officer having probable cause to stop you. You could, however, challenge the arrest if the checkpoint did not meet all the legal requirements our state law imposes on DUI sobriety checkpoints. A California DUI attorney can talk with you and examine whether a dismissal of the charges could be possible. The Requirements for a DUI Sobriety Checkpoint to be Legal Under the California Constitution In the 1987 case of Ingersoll v. Palmer, the California Supreme Court compared sobriety checkpoints to other administrative inspections, like airport screening searches. The Court held that law enforcement officers do not have to follow the 4th amendment at DUI roadblocks because these are administrative inspections, not searches and seizures. The Court explained its decision to treat sobriety checkpoints…
District Court Enjoins Controversial Texas House Bill 20 - December 15, 2021 - Aaron Rubin and Heather Whitney
Over the past several years, Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, the federal law that provides social media platforms with immunity from liability for user content and was once hailed as “the law that gave us the modern Internet,” has gone from relative obscurity (at least outside of tech circles) to being a household name and politicians’ favorite punching bag. Interestingly, the objections to Section 230 come from advocates on both sides of the aisle. Those on both the left and the right see the law as permitting platforms to maintain content moderation policies that result in significant social ills—they just tend to disagree about what those social ills are, and thus what those content moderation policies ought to be. Generally speaking, advocates on the left see platforms as being too permissive in allowing misinformation to run rampant and blame that spread of misinformation for everything from Trump’s presidential win to, earlier…
Our readers have requested that we post the full text of the California e bike law that was signed into law in October 2015 that governs the use of e bike on California roadways and some bike paths. Again please check individual vehicle code sections to insure that changes have not been made since this bill was issued in October 2015. Assembly Bill No. 1096 An act to amend Sections 406, 12804.9, 21113, 21207.5, and 24016 of, and to add Sections 312.5 and 21213 to, the Vehicle Code, relating to vehicles. [ Approved by Governor  October 07, 2015. Filed with Secretary of State  October 07, 2015. ] LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST AB 1096, Chiu. Vehicles: electric bicycles. Existing law defines a “motorized bicycle” or a “moped” as a 2-wheeled or 3-wheeled device having fully operative pedals for propulsion by human power, or having no pedals if powered solely by electrical energy, and an automatic transmission and motor, as specified. Existing…
Over the last several years, virtually all levels of government have increasingly recognized the critical link between building a diverse, equitable, and inclusive workplace and effectively meeting the needs of the communities they serve—in particular, historically underserved and marginalized communities. At the federal level, the Biden Administration has issued several Executive Orders that recognize the need for a systemic approach to identifying and addressing policies and programs “that serve as barriers to equal opportunity.”  Most recently, in June 2021, President Biden signed Executive Order 14035, which in part, directs the Office of Personnel Management (in coordination with several federal commissions and executive councils and departments) to develop a federal Government-wide Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Accessibility (DEIA) Initiative and Strategic Plan.  The DEIA plan must identify strategies to advance equitable policies and…