Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
11th Circuit Sides With Attorney Sued Over Prince Concert Snafu
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit upheld the dismissal of a lawsuit claiming a Florida lawyer failed to follow through on a $75,000 deal to land the late mega-musician Prince for a 2012 gig. Walace v. Cousins, 18-10267. (The appeals court said in a footnote: "Although the style of the case refers to [Janet] Wallace as Walace, both parties agree that her name is Wallace.")
The lawyer — who made what were described as "many false and grandiose promises" about his connections to the star who died in 2016 — refused to return the money. Plaintiff Janet Wallace sued the lawyer, Patrick Cousins, for fraud after the performance failed to occur. Cousins, of West Palm Beach, FL, responded that he did exactly what he promised to do: Try to arrange the show. The trial judge in the Northern District of Georgia found there was no controversy and threw out the case.
The appeals court agreed, ruling that nothing in the case could lead a "rational trier of fact" to conclude the lawyer defrauded Wallace. "Janet Wallace may find hollow Prince's refrain that he 'never meant to cause … any sorrow' or 'pain,'" stated the per curiam opinion issued by Chief Judge Ed Carnes and Judges Jill Pryor and R. Lanier Anderson III of the Eleventh Circuit. There was no evidence that Cousins' claim that he was "willing and able to facilitate Prince's performance" was fraudulent, the appellate judges found.
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.
Removing Restrictive Covenants In New York
In Rockwell v. Despart, the New York Supreme Court, Third Department, recently revisited a recurring question: When may a landowner seek judicial removal of a covenant restricting use of her land?
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.