Summary Of The Supreme Court Case Of VIP Products LLC

Mr. Packard and his wife bought a house in 2009 and applied for a $6,500 tax credit. Mr. Packard did not own a principal residence before, and Mrs. Packard owned and lived a principal residence in the past five year. Two policies can apply for the individual $6,500 tax credit: “first time buyer (§ 36(c)(1))” and “long-term resident exception (§ 36(c)(6))”. In other words, it means a person either first time purchased a principal residence, or owned and used the same residence as such individual’s principal residence for any 5-consecutive-year period during the 8-year period. Mr. Packard was qualified for “first time buyer” but not for “long-term resident exception”, and Mrs. Packard was qualified for “long-term resident exception” but not

Legal History/Procedure: The tribunal for the Ellison v. Burger King Corp. case was presiding judge, Blackburn of the Court of Appeals of Georgia. The trial court granted summary judgement in favor of defendants Burger King, SRH (Southern Restaurant Hospitality), Carl Payton (SRH president), and the manager. Ellison appealed the judgement of the trial court to the Court of Appeals contending that material issues of fact impeded summary judgment. Operative Facts: Sharon Ellison, went to a Burger king to put in her order and wanted to know why no one was serving her. She claims the manager on duty put her hands around her neck and eventually started shaking her head.

Voisine v. United States Case at the Supreme Court Student’s Name Institutional Affiliation Abstract The main purpose of this paper is to present a critique of the Voisine v. United States case handled by the Supreme Court on June 27, 2016. The case involved Stephen Voisine who had previously been convicted of a misdemeanor domestic violence case against his girlfriend.

Should corporations be given religious freedom? The case of Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. has opened the door for corporations to deny all kinds of protections and laws to their employees. What if the corporation in question was a car insurance company, and they did not want to cover their employees birth control? Would they still hold the same position if a citizen (or a whole state) claimed religious exemption to being forced to purchase car insurance?

Herbert addresses the problem of using the slogan with association of the book as there will "be a likelihood of confusion" as there is a "connection with our respective products" ( Herbert ,9-11.) Herbert brought the flawed idea that people would confuse the book and Coca Cola as they have the same slogan. However, Seaver counteracts this with verbal irony saying that the public would "mistake a book by a Harlem schoolteacher for a six-pack of Coca Cola" (Seaver,5-6.) Seaver distinguishes the flaw of Herbert's argument as people would not connect the two products even if they had the same slogan. This proves Herbert's argument as logically incorrect as the public would be able to tell which product is sponsored by which company, Coca Cola sodas by the Coca Cola Company and the Diary of a Harlem Schoolteacher by the Grove

MBA625_FINAL PROJECT 1 November, 2015 Internal Analysis: Longhorn Industries, Inc. v. Widget Corporation Widget Corporation has recently received a summons for a suit brought by a customer in Texas. While seeking legal counsel, an internal analysis was conducted to better understand the potential legal issues with this case. This report provides that analysis, looking at the procedural and substantive aspects of this suit. Background Widget Corporation Located in California, Widget Corporation (“Widget”) is incorporated in Delaware, a state where more than half the Fortune 500 companies are incorporated. (Top 5 Reason to Incorporate in Delaware, 2007)

With the U.S. Supreme Court ruling in favour of Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., in the Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., closely held for-profit corporations are now exempted from a regulation its owners religiously object to. With a license to ignore anti-discrimination laws, said business entities, through their respective owners, now possess the capacity to impose their religious beliefs on employees and customers alike. But how does all this translate into the real world? In short, it translates into unprecedented discriminatory freedom protected under the law; should my religion for example stipulate that the races, or the sexes are unequal, I could legally enforce a white male only policy. Gay and lesbian couples, often not aligning with

Pat had developed and established Stangaid as a unique flavored sports drink and had marketed it locally and regionally. He did not sell the rights to use the Stangaid logo to Drink-Co. The fact that Drink-Co offered to buy Stangaid for $30 million did not include the right to use the Stangaid logo. By using the Stangaid logo on Augie-aid bottles and advertising Augie-aid as Stangaid, Drink-Co created confusion among consumers, and this constitutes an infringement of Pat's intellectual property

Certiorari was granted to resolve “the question of whether the objective evidence of actual damage to the economic value of a famous mark rather than a presumption of damage from subjective probability standard of dilution is required for relief under the act.” Federal Trademark Dilution Act entails the factors that determine whether a mark is distinctive and famous. The act defines “dilution” as the “lessening of the capacity of a famous mark to identify and distinguish goods or services.” The FTDA answers that question, and the answer is no. This requirement was not included in the act.

The Lanham Act does not include inherently distinctive marks. Justice Scalia was quoted saying the following, "Consumers should not be deprived of the benefits of competition with regard to the utilitarian and esthetic purposes that product design ordinarily serves by a rule of law that facilitates plausible threats of suit against new entrants based upon alleged inherent

The article is effective in its satirical approach, as it allows readers to take a step back and look at the ridiculousness of the product, as well as the marketing tactics that are used to promote it. The use of satire in this article is successful in drawing attention to the flaws of the marketing industry, and is a powerful example of the power of satire in modern society. (SC Smith,

A controversial and very popular media case that took place decades ago is the Time, Inc. v. Hill. This particular case took place in 1967 in New York. James Hill and his wife and five children were victims of hostage in their Whitemarsh Township, Pennsylvania home by three escaped convicts in 1952. The family members were held hostage for 19 hours and the criminals were captured shortly after leaving the Hill’s home. The family received plenty of media attention and relocated to Connecticut in efforts to get away from this attention.

They have also led to high rates of abandonment, torture and abuse of this breed of dogs compared to other breeds (Landau

2. Predicate Acts The De Sole and Howard Plaintiffs have alleged predicate acts of mail and wire fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1341 and 1343. In addition, Howard alleges false labeling of visual art, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2318, as a predicate act. Hammer argues, however, that Plaintiffs have not alleged that Hammer committed a predicate act and, in particular, have not alleged that "Hammer used the mail or the wires for the purpose of executing the alleged scheme."

James Smith(w) reported that his wife, coach Smith(v) was with her friend, Vivian books(s) arguing about the money coach Smith(v) borrowed Vivian books(s), then the argument leads to a fight. While they were fighting coach Smith got hit on the head when she fell because she was pushed by Vivian (s) blood started gushing out of her head then her husband called 911 then she was rushed to the hospital and was treated