elf: Rainbow fist (Join the Impact)
[personal profile] elf2010-08-14 04:36 pm

Perry v Schwarzenegger (Prop 8): Final Ruling

Perry v Schwarzenegger (Prop 8 California),
Final ruling released on August 4, 2010

LINK TO ORIGINAL: www.scribd.com/doc/35374462/Prop-8-Ruling-FINAL (Bookmarked PDF or Word document available on request; just send me a PM with your email address.)
Approx.40,000 words. Formatting may not show a, b, c lists instead of 1, 2, 3. Sorry about that.

Perry v Schwarzenneger header )

(Linked) Table of Contents )

Plaintiffs challenge a November 2008 voter-enacted amendment to the California Constitution (“Proposition 8” or “Prop 8”). Cal Const Art I, § 7.5. In its entirety, Proposition 8 provides: “Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.” Plaintiffs allege that Proposition 8 deprives them of due process and of equal protection of the laws contrary to the Fourteenth Amendment and that its enforcement by state officials violates 42 USC § 1983.

Plaintiffs are two couples. Kristin Perry and Sandra Stier reside in Berkeley, California and raise four children together. Jeffrey Zarrillo and Paul Katami reside in Burbank, California. Plaintiffs seek to marry their partners and have been denied marriage licenses by their respective county authorities on the basis of Proposition 8. No party contended, and no evidence at trial suggested, that the county authorities had any ground to deny marriage licenses to plaintiffs other than Proposition 8.

Having considered the trial evidence and the arguments of counsel, the court pursuant to FRCP 52(a) finds that Proposition 8 is unconstitutional and that its enforcement must be enjoined.

Background )
Procedural History )
Plaintiffs' Case )
Proponents' Defense )
Trial Proceedings & Summary of Testimony )
Credibility: Plaintiffs' Witnesses )
Credibility: Proponents' Witnesses )
Findings of Facts )
Facts: The Parties )
Whether Evidence Supports Refusal to Recognize Marriage )
Whether Evidence Shows an Interest in Differentiating )
Whether Evidence Shows a Private Moral View )
Conclusions of Law: Due Process )
Conclusions of Law: Equal Protection )
Conclusion )
Remedies )

elf: Computer chip with location dot (You Are Here)
[personal profile] elf2009-12-13 06:25 pm

Sony v Tenenbaum final judgment

Tenenbaum copyright (torrenting) ruling
Dec 7, 2009
Link to original: http://www.scribd.com/doc/23790774/Fair-Use-Memorandum-and-Order-in-Sony-v-Tenenbaum
Other docs: http://www.scribd.com/doc/23790774/Fair-Use-Memorandum-and-Order-in-Sony-v-Tenenbaum

Case 1:07-cv-11446-NG Document 22 Filed 12/07/2009

Sony v Tenenbaum Header & Contents )



Case No. 07cv11446-NG



December 7, 2009
I. Introduction )
II. Equitable Defense )
III. Summary Judgment/A. Legal Standard )
B. Fair Use Standard )
C. Fair Use Analysis )
IV. Conclusion )

Footnotes )
elf: Pie chart with question mark (Pie Chart of Fail)
[personal profile] elf2009-12-12 11:08 pm

Salinger v. Colting: Final ruling

Salinger Copyright Ruling, complete text: 8400 words

LINK TO ORIGINAL: http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/20090701salinger.pdf
(Searchable PDF w/bookmarks & Word document also available on request. Email me.)

Salinger v Colting header )

Plaintiff J.D. Salinger brings suit against Defendants Fredrik Colting, writing under the name John David California, Windupbird Publishing Ltd., Nicotext A.B., and ABP, Inc., doing business as SCB Distributors Inc., alleging claims for Copyright Infringement and common law Unfair Competition. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants' novel, 60 Years Later; Coming Through the Rye (hereinafter "60 Years"), is a derivative work of his novel, The Catcher in the Rye (hereinafter "Catcher"), and that the character of Mr. C from 60 Years, is an infringement on his character, Holden Caulfield, from Catcher.

Plaintiff now moves for a preliminary injunction preventing Defendants from publishing, advertising, or otherwise distributing 60 Years in the United States of America during the pendency of this suit. For the following reasons, a preliminary injunction is GRANTED.
I. Introduction )
II. Discussion A. The Preliminary Injunction Standard )
B. The Fair Use Doctrine )
C. Applying the Four Factor Analysis to 60 Years )
III. Conclusion )

Footnotes )