An Activist Law Firm
Latrell Sprewell gets a “boxer’s fracture,” Boxer’s fractures are when you break the metacarpal bone in your hand. When asked, Sprewell appears to have been evasive about how it happened,
A salute to a fellow First Amendment attorney, Andrew McCullough. I didn’t know that he had a blog until today, so in honor of adding him to my blogroll, I’ll
I’m not sure what is so bad about a Trademark turning into a verb or dying of genericide. The process of linguistic evolution is, I think, one of the more
Mary Jean, who the 1st Circuit described as “a local political activist in Worcester, Massachusetts” publishes a a website critical of Worcester County District Attorney John Conte (www.conte2006.com). Coincidentally (insert
[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FU7dY1CXRPk] I couldn’t possibly add anything to this to improve upon it, except this: If you are one of the 26% of this country who still gives George Bush a
Thomas v. Telegraph Publishing Co. A good discussion of the libel-proof plaintiff, public figure/actual malice, and general doctrines important to defamation actions. More to follow.
I wanted to call this post “A Salute to Richard Marmor.” Who is Richard Marmor? Nobody really. I don’t say that in an insulting way… he’s, as far as I
I just did the Lisa Macci show, The Justice Hour, which is always a wonderful experience. She is a “conservative,” but in the real tradition of less government and more
Ok, that is a little optimistic. The case does display some disturbing principles and some that make me a little hopeful. The majority seemed to wish to dispense with the
SeePowerful Katinka, Inc. v. McFarland, 07-6036 (S.D.N.Y). I was going to write about this case, but why reinvent the wheel? My friend, Michael Atkins’ Seattle Trademark Lawyer blog already has
Here’s an interesting one… a Washington band, “The Wailers” is suing “The Wailers” (as in “Bob Marley and”) over their use of the band name. Again, why write about it
The whole McCain-Feingold issue tears my little mind apart. Philosophically, I agree with McFeingold. The law has the best intentions — to remove the undue influence that moneyed interests can