Martin Garbus

https://casetext.com/case/stolow-v-greg-manning-auctions-inc

The Court of Appeals affirmed the decisions granting the I. Appel’s motion to reopen its bankruptcy case.

Motion for reconsideration denied

See summary: https://casetext.com/case/aboutcom-inc-v-targetfirst-inc

https://tjcenter.org/litigation/jones-v-f-c-c/

Finding it was harmless error for district court to instruct jury as to burden-shifting framework.

As the parties' agreement isolated valuation from arbitration, the district court properly ordered the attempt to arbitrate valuation invalid

The Appellants no basis for disturbing the District Court's judgment. Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed.

A trademark licensee can sue its licensor for false advertising of the licensor's product, but the District Court did not err in denying the preliminary injunction.

A trademark licensee can sue its licensor for false advertising of the licensor's product, but also that the District Court did not err in denying a preliminary injunction

Protection not able to be claimed for the theme of a submission that resulted in the appearance of similar articles.

Plaintiffs are entitled to appropriate injunctive and declaratory relief.

The appeal is dismissed on the ground of mootness. The judgment of the court below is vacated and the case is remanded with directions to dismiss the complaint.

Summary judgment is granted in favor of Viking and the Government.

9-0 Victory Before The Supreme Court

Supreme Court ruled that the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution requires an evidentiary hearing before a recipient of certain government benefits (welfare) can be deprived of such benefits

Supreme Court of the United States held that Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) could not be withheld because of the presence of a "substitute father" who visited a family on weekends.

Court ruled that breach of the peace is not a constitutional basis for imposing criminal liability, and held that common-law criminal libel is "the publication of a defamatory statement about another which is false, with malice.

Supreme Court held view that the First Amendment does not permit censorship of any kind

http://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/FSupp2/221/425/2486359/