Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : Jun-08-2009
Caperton v. A. T. Massey Coal Co. - 08-22 (2009) SYLLABUS OCTOBER TERM, 2008 CAPERTON V. A. T. MASSEY COAL CO. SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES CAPERTON etal. v . A. T. MASSEY COAL CO., INC., etal. certiorari to the supreme court of appeals of west virginia No. 0822.Argued March 3, 2009Decided June 8, 2009 After a West Virginia jury found respondents, a coal company and its affiliates (hereinafter Massey), liable for fraudulent misrepresentation, concealment, and tortious interference with existing contractual relations and awarded petitioners (hereinafter Caperton) $50 million in damages, West Virginia held its 2004 judicial elections. Knowing the State Supreme Court of Appeals would consider the appeal, Don Blankenship, Masseys chairman and principal officer, supported Brent Benjamin rather than the incumbent justice seeking reelection. His $3 million in contributions exceeded the total amount spent by all other Benjamin supporters and by Benjamins own committee. Be...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : Apr-28-2009
FCC v. Fox Television Stations, Inc. - 07-582 (2009) SYLLABUS OCTOBER TERM, 2008 FCC V. FOX TELEVISION STATIONS, INC. SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION etal. v . FOX TELEVISION STATIONS, INC., etal. certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the second circuit No. 07582.Argued November 4, 2008Decided April 28, 2009 Federal law bans the broadcasting of any indecent language, 18 U. S.C. 1464, which includes references to sexual or excretory activity or organs, see FCC v. Pacifica Foundation , 438 U. S. 726 . Having first defined the prohibited speech in 1975, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) took a cautious, but gradually expanding, approach to enforcing the statutory prohibition. In 2004, the FCCs Golden Globes Order declared for the first time that an expletive (nonliteral) use of the F-Word or the S-Word could be actionably indecent, even when the word is used only once. This case concerns isolated utterance...
Tag this Judgment!Court : UK Supreme Court
Decided on : Dec-01-2009
LORD RODGER If a group of people come on to my land without my permission, I shall want the law to provide a speedy way of dealing with the situation. If they leave but come back repeatedly, depending on the evidence, I shall be able to obtain an interlocutory and final injunction against them returning. But they may come on to my land and set up camp there. Again, depending on the evidence, I shall be able to obtain an injunction (interlocutory and final) against them remaining and also against them coming back again once they leave as required by the injunction. Similarly, if the evidence shows that, once they leave, they are likely to move and set up camp on other land which I own, the court can grant an injunction (interlocutory and final) against them doing that. If authority is needed for all this, it can be found in the judgment of Lord Diplock in the Court of Appeal in Manchester Corporation v Connolly [1970] Ch 420. Of course, it is quite likely that I won't know the identiti...
Tag this Judgment!