StudentShare solutions
Triangle menu

H - L, P: Scheetz v. The Morning Call, 946 F.2d 202 Walker v. Pearl S. Buck Foundation, 1996 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17927 - Essay Example

Not dowloaded yet

Extract of sample
H - L, P: Scheetz v. The Morning Call, 946 F.2d 202 Walker v. Pearl S. Buck Foundation, 1996 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17927

From the case’s details, the email aimed at communicating to the fans who had bought the tickets of an upcoming match that it had been cancelled. However, the email was met with a fury, which was, asserted in the countersuit, as having been directed to the perceived sender of the email, Joseph Krause. The defendant did not send the email and had nothing to do with informing the fans that a match had been cancelled, and had not authorized or allowed the AFC Philadelphia to use his email address (Baylson 1). The Plaintiff had sued the defendant for trademark violation, copyright violation, false advertising and unjust enrichment. The defendant asserted claims under the Lanham Act. The court ruled that the defendant adequately pled the counterclaim and denied the plaintiff’s motion to dismiss the counterclaim. Case number 81-1415, Christina McCabe, the plaintiff, vs. The Village Voice, Inc., et al, the defendant, was argued from April 10, 1981 and decided on November 1, 1982. The plaintiff, Christina McCabe, claimed for damages for defamation and assault of privacy. The Village Voice, a weekly newspaper, published a nude picture of McCabe, which had been taken by Donald Herron in her bathtub. This issue published pictures of other people with most of them partially or totally nude. McCabe had not met Herron before the day that he took her the picture. However, when she was introduced to the photographer, she accepted to be photographed by him. She however, did not say anything when the photographer said that he would use the photograph in the publication of a book. Herron then contacted The Village Voice and enquired whether they would be interested in publishing his work. The plaintiff claimed damages of $7, 000, 000 for defamation and annexation of her privacy. This claim of infringement of privacy had two different claims with distinct constituents: publicity given to private facts and privacy placing an individual in a false light. In this case, the court granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment on the libel and false light claims and denied the motion as to the publishing of private details prerogative. In the AFL Philadelphia vs. Krause, the court permitted Krause’s Lanham Act and misappropriation entitlements to proceed. Before dealing with the substantive aspects of Krause’s trademark violation prerogative, the court had to determine whether Krause had “prudential standing” convey the Lanham Act prerogative. The court principally depended on the five-factor test expressed in Conte Bros. Auto, Inc, vs. Quaker State-Slick 500, Inc. (1998). These factors include: 1) the nature of the alleged damage on the plaintiff, 2) the directness of the indirectness of the claimed damage, 3) the propinquity of inaccessibility of the plaintiff to the asserted injurious conduct, 4) the degree of assumption of the injury claim, and 5) the risk of replicative damages. All the factors were viewed equally, with none viewed as influential (Baylson 1). While knowing “the nature of Krause’s damage was to some degree inaccessible from the harm that congress sought to protect in the Lanham Act”, the court concluded that Krause’s imploring justified prudential standing since the Act safeguards an individual from injury to his or her commercial status and goodwill. In light of this, the court established that the plaintiff had sidetracked some of their reputational injury to Defendant by relating him with their engagements. The court rejected ...Show more

Summary

Subject: Case Review and Principles Governing Application of Privacy Related Torts The case number 09-614, AFL Philadelphia LLC and Jon Bongiovi, the Plaintiff, vs. Joseph E. Krause, the Defendant, was argued from March, 25 and decided on June, 4 2009…
Author : ruthieschultz
H - L, P: Scheetz v. The Morning Call, 946 F.2d 202 Walker v. Pearl S. Buck Foundation, 1996 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17927 essay example
Read Text Preview
Save Your Time for More Important Things
Let us write or edit the essay on your topic
"H - L, P: Scheetz v. The Morning Call, 946 F.2d 202 Walker v. Pearl S. Buck Foundation, 1996 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17927"
with a personal 20% discount.
Grab the best paper

Related Essays

Sociology-Enlightenment Age v/s Classical Age
Sociology-Enlightenment Age v/s Classical Age Name Institution Course Sociology-Enlightenment Age v/s Classical Age Enlightenment age is formally associated with 18th century period. This enlightenment age swept the entire continent of Europe. The atmosphere of this time was the need to reshape the philosophical, political movement and cultural perspectives to include the rule of reason, in these aspects of life (Schmidt, 1996).
11 pages (2750 words) Essay
C-V-P equation.Contribution margin
The major purpose of this model and its application is the predictability of future profits and its change based on changes in either volume or any of the components of costs that it takes into account.
5 pages (1250 words) Essay
Case Brief U.S v. Hinkley
Hickley was immediately arrested and subsequently faced trial for prosecution in the Legal Court of the Columbia district of the USA. Hinckley’s lawyers argued that he was suffering from schizophrenia and his actions were a result of
2 pages (500 words) Essay
WHITLEY v. ALBERS CASE 475 U.S. 312; 106 S. Ct. 1078; 89 L. Ed. 2d 251 (1986)
Other information provides details of what lead to the altercation and details of the case. What is an officer’s lawful authority, current federal use of force standards under the Constitution, and how Chief Justice Rehnquist has influenced correction
9 pages (2250 words) Essay
Prepare a legal brief on the U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Santa Fe Independent School Dist. v. Doe, 530 U.S. 290 (2000)
A certain number of students were against this and they launched a suit stating that such practices were in violation of the Establishment Clause and these prayers were equal to support of religion. This claim made by the student was countered by the district and the district
2 pages (500 words) Essay
Stanard v. Bolin, 88 Wash. 2d 614 (1977)
However, after all the arrangements and expected preparations for a marriage ceremony, the defendant cancelled the wedding. The new were shocking to the plaintiff and this caused her to become ill, lose sleep and weight. She was treated by her physician, and in addition, she
1 pages (250 words) Essay
Grusendorf v Oklahoma City, 816 F. 2d 539 (U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit 1987)
 The Court has recognized a right of liberty or privacy in only a handful of circumstances. It can hardly be disputed that the Oklahoma City Fire Departments non-smoking regulation invades upon the liberty and privacy of the firefighter trainees (Ducat,
1 pages (250 words) Essay
Gastineau v. Gastineau, 151 Misc. 2d 813, 573 N.Y.S.2d 819 (1991)
They aligned most of the things that were acquired when both couples were together. It is said that in 1988 Mr. Gastineau had an illegitimate relationship and it came to a point that the woman who was involved in this illegitimate relationship, Brigitte Nielsensuffered
1 pages (250 words) Essay
Maryland v. Pringle, 540 U.S. 366 (2003)
The plaintiff was Maryland state government where a policeman had arrested a vehicle occupant on the basis of possibly causing crime in a situation that is not very clear who committed it. A speeding vehicle with three occupants, Pringle, Smith, and
2 pages (500 words) Essay
Assignment 2: Terry V.Ohio 392 U.S. 1, 88 S. Ct. 1868, 20 L. ED.2d 889, 1968 U.S
He decided to approach them because he felt they intended holding up a store; after which he identified himself as a detective officer and then proceeded to ask them their names, which they mumbled in response. He then turned the
8 pages (2000 words) Essay
Get a custom paper written
by a pro under your requirements!
Win a special DISCOUNT!
Put in your e-mail and click the button with your lucky finger
Your email
YOUR PRIZE:
Apply my DISCOUNT
Comments (0)
Rate this paper:
Thank you! Your comment has been sent and will be posted after moderation