Search for: "Ginsberg v. New York" Results 61 - 80 of 91
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
24 Aug 2011, 10:07 am by Christina D. Frangiosa
Complaint & Trial On September 8, 3008, the textbook publisher, John Wiley & Sons, filed suit in the federal district court in Manhattan (Southern District of New York) claiming copyright infringement (17 U.S.C. § 501) and trademark infringement (15 U.S.C. § 1114(a)) under federal law, and unfair competition under New York state law. [read post]
1 Aug 2011, 3:30 am by Susan Cartier Liebel
Trippe Fried shared the news that InHouse Legal recently opened a New York office. [read post]
28 Jun 2011, 11:34 am by Judith G. McMullen
New York allowed the state to apply an age-adjusted standard for its restriction on the sale of obscene materials to minors.  [read post]
27 Jun 2011, 8:30 am
The statute defined violent games in a way that "mimics the New York statute regulating obscenity-for-minors that we upheld in Ginsberg v. [read post]
27 Jun 2011, 7:27 am by Eugene Volokh
Even though the standards of the law are borrowed largely from similar laws related to the distribution of sexually themed materials to minors (see Ginsberg v. [read post]
28 Dec 2010, 3:30 am by Gene Quinn
The New York Times published an op-ed piece written by Chief Judge Michel and Tessera CEO Hank Notthaft, and the folks over at Fox News read that op-ed piece and brought it up on a Sunday morning talk show. [read post]
16 Nov 2010, 2:33 pm by Christine Dowling
Supreme Court yesterday issued its first signed decision of the term in Abbott v. [read post]
26 Oct 2010, 7:36 am by Eugene Volokh
New York, 390 U.S. 629 (1968),] and [FCC v.] [read post]
1 Oct 2010, 10:01 am by David Post
The doctrinal problem, for opponents of the law (like us), is that the Court some time ago, in Ginsberg v. [read post]
17 Sep 2010, 10:32 am by Eugene Volokh
New York (1968), and argues that the California statutory standard is unconstitutionally vague. [read post]
27 Apr 2010, 7:12 pm
The Ninth Circuit said in EMA that it would not create a new categorical exception for "speech as to minors," thus reading Ginsberg v New York narrowly.   [read post]