Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Courthouse Steps
CASE CAPTION: John Hughes v. E! Entertainment Television Inc. and E! Online, L.A. Superior Court, # BC335300.
CAUSES OF ACTION: Broadcast slander per se; libel per se based on imputation of crime; false light; and negligence.
COMPLAINT ALLEGATIONS: The defendants broadcast a story in July 2004, alleging that the plaintiff was stalking actress Meg Ryan. This was false; he was never arrested or charged with the felony of being a stalker. He was arrested, charged and convicted only on trespassing, a misdemeanor. Articles about this also appeared on eonline.com. The articles and broadcast falsely stated that the plaintiff showed up in a lot of creepy places and that there was a frightening encounter.
RELIEF SOUGHT: Damages and an injunction against further publications insinuating that the plaintiff is a stalker.
PLAINTIFF'S COUNSEL: Daniel E. Hoffman and John D. Hardy of Van Nuys, CA's Schuler & Brown (818-756-0999).
CASE CAPTION: John Hughes v.
CAUSES OF ACTION: Broadcast slander per se; libel per se based on imputation of crime; false light; and negligence.
COMPLAINT ALLEGATIONS: The defendants broadcast a story in July 2004, alleging that the plaintiff was stalking actress Meg Ryan. This was false; he was never arrested or charged with the felony of being a stalker. He was arrested, charged and convicted only on trespassing, a misdemeanor. Articles about this also appeared on eonline.com. The articles and broadcast falsely stated that the plaintiff showed up in a lot of creepy places and that there was a frightening encounter.
RELIEF SOUGHT: Damages and an injunction against further publications insinuating that the plaintiff is a stalker.
PLAINTIFF'S COUNSEL: Daniel E. Hoffman and John D. Hardy of Van Nuys, CA's Schuler & Brown (818-756-0999).
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
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.
'Huguenot LLC v. Megalith Capital Group Fund I, L.P.': A Tutorial On Contract Liability for Real Estate Purchasers
In June 2024, the First Department decided Huguenot LLC v. Megalith Capital Group Fund I, L.P., which resolved a question of liability for a group of condominium apartment buyers and in so doing, touched on a wide range of issues about how contracts can obligate purchasers of real property.
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.