Eugene Volokh is the Gary T. Schwartz Professor of Law at the UCLA School of Law and co-founder of the Volokh Conspiracy blog, hosted at Reason.
Latest from Eugene Volokh
"On the record before the Court, the movants have demonstrated 'sufficiently serious questions going to the merits to make them a fair ground for litigation.'"
An interesting federal court opinion.
This is the case where two students were shouting "nigger" loudly when walking by UConn dorms; the students are trying to block university discipline based on their speech, including their eviction from student housing.
"The public may well have an interest in how litigation is funded by third parties," the judge concludes. A law firm and two litigation finance companies are disputing (among other things) whether the litigation finance agreements are illegally usurious.
Episode 9 of Free Speech Rules, a video series by UCLA Law Professor Eugene Volokh
So a New Jersey tax court held last week, in a case brought by prominent bank founder Vernon W. Hill.
Asheen Phansey's was responding to President Trump's threat to bomb Iranian cultural sites.
There's also more to the case, which was brought over statements made on a local TV broadcast while Morrissey was unsuccessfully running for Richmond Mayor. (He is now a state senator, elected in November.)
Connecticut Racial Ridicule Prosecution: One Student Agrees to Probation, the Other's Case Is Still Pending
This is the case in which two students were walking near UConn student housing, loudly shouting "nigger" (apparently after having decided that loudly shouting "penis" wasn't good enough).
The plaintiff is a former Philadelphia officer, who was charged with (and acquitted of) wrongly threatening people with a gun; she claims the documentary wrongly portrayed her as "dirty and dishonest."
Above The Law Post Not Libelous or "Unlawful Discrimination," Notwithstanding Its Supposed "Homophobic" Insults
The statements about former law student Jonathan Mullane were either fair report of court proceedings or constitutionally protected opinions (e.g., calling Mullane "'rude,' 'dumb,' 'unethical,' a 'little entitled ponce,' and a 'dauphin'").
A change to state law keeps it from applying to the plaintiff, which makes the request for injunctive and declaratory relief moot.
A Public Service Announcement, especially for the lawyers among our readers.
No, says the trial court, and the Minnesota Court of Appeals agrees.
Attempt to Vanish Post Critical of Attempt to Vanish Posts Critical of the Sandy Hook Hoax Libel Judgment
Lenny Pozner has tried to get Amazon Web Services to remove a post of mine.
A response to a query of mine, from David Hodges of the Institute for Justice (who are plaintiff's lawyers).
"It would be a violation of the First Amendment of the United States Constitution for the Court to order the Wife to participate in a religious ritual when she did not agree to do so nor may the Court impose a financial penalty against her."
to the extent that the law criminalized attempts to influence a public servant by threatening harm to "business, financial condition, or personal relationships."
No dice, says the District Court.
according to Prof. Mark Liberman (Language Log):
A company had a trademark canceled in a Trademark Trial & Appeal Board proceeding, based on what the Board described as the company's "delaying tactics, including the willful disregard of Board orders." The TTABlog posted about it, and some commenters criticized the company's lawyer, Ohio State Prof. Charles L. (Lee) Thomason—so he is suing them for libel.
Requiring Psychotherapists to Report Patients' Child Porn Use May Violate Constitutional Right to Privacy
So concludes the California Supreme Court (by a 4-3 vote), applying the California Constitution; it remands for further fact-finding on the law's practical costs and benefits.
"Other statements by Complainant ... along with undisputed other evidence, entirely disprove her bare assertions that she was incapacitated."
Now that's being tough on crime.
The school policy allows girls to wear small earrings, but doesn't allow them for boys.
More on Doe v. Mckesson, the Baton Rouge Black Lives Matter case.
the Baton Rouge Black Lives Matter case (in which Judge Don Willett has just switched to dissenting, and in which a cert. petition has been filed with the U.S. Supreme Court).
The case, in which Judge Don Willett has just switched to dissenting, should be an easy win for DeRay Mckesson—but on a theory that hadn't been asserted in court.
"Steve Farzam, chief operating officer of the Shore Hotel [in Santa Monica], ... [has] been charged with counterfeiting a Los Angeles County Superior Court seal."
The first reference to the term "retcon" in a Westlaw-accessible court opinion.
Be good, boys and girls, or we'll sue you, too.
"The public—including other litigants—and other judges who may come into contact with [Richard] Liebowitz, a frequent litigant in this District, have an interest in the Court's determination of the veracity of these representations."
More on Seattle Public Library "Considering" Whether to Cancel Meeting of Trans-Skeptical Feminist Group
The ACLU of Washington speaks out.
And this isn't "hijacking" in some virtual sense. (Computer crime—you're doing it wrong.)