Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Domestic Violence Debated in Supreme Court
The U.S. Supreme Court is facing the serious nationwide problem of domestic violence and the continuing difficulty of enforcement of one of the most important weapons against that violence — protection orders. On March 21, the Court considered whether a civil rights remedy is available to domestic violence victims whose pleas to enforce protection orders go unheeded by local police departments. Town of Castle Rock, Colorado v. Gonzales, No. 04-728.
At the core of the case is a claim under 42 U.S.C. 1983, which provides a civil remedy, including damages, when a person is deprived of his or her constitutionally protected property interest without due process. The Tenth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals held last year that Castle Rock could be liable under ' 1983. The divided en banc court ruled that the combination of a protection order and a state statute mandating arrest of the person restrained when police have probable cause to believe the order has been violated creates a property interest in enforcement of the order. The decision involves the interpretation of the Due Process Clause of the Constitution and poses the question: Does the government have a constitutional duty to protect its citizens from private violence? The implications of the answer for local governments and domestic violence victims alone are huge, according to amicus briefs filed on both sides.
The Facts
This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
- Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
- Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
The Article 8 Opt In
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
Legal Possession: What Does It Mean?
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.
The Stranger to the Deed Rule
In 1987, a unanimous Court of Appeals reaffirmed the vitality of the "stranger to the deed" rule, which holds that if a grantor executes a deed to a grantee purporting to create an easement in a third party, the easement is invalid. Daniello v. Wagner, decided by the Second Department on November 29th, makes it clear that not all grantors (or their lawyers) have received the Court of Appeals' message, suggesting that the rule needs re-examination.