Tag Archives: PREVIOUS

On second thought: Ninth Circuit reverses a previous reversal of a death sentence the Supreme Court had affirmed

A little over a year ago, the Ninth Circuit granted habeas corpus relief to a defendant whose death sentence the California Supreme Court had affirmed in 1988. On Monday, with a two-thirds different panel, the federal appeals court withdrew its … Continue reading

Posted in Judiciary | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

reality series "Love at First Flight" doesn't infringe previous web series of same name

Reflex Media, Inc. v. Pilgrim Studios, Inc., No. CV 18-2260-GW(FFMx), 2018 WL 6566561 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 27, 2018)The court here dismisses trademark/unfair competition and copyright claims against a reality TV show with the same name as Reflex’s earlier YouTube series … Continue reading

Posted in Advertising Law | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Predictive Dialer Prediction Comes True: Court Rules that ACA International Vacated Previous FCC Predictive Dialer Decisions and Holds that Predictive Dialers are Not Autodialers Under the TCPA

Technology is present in nearly everything we do and not only in the form of a smartphone. Now, when people brush their teeth, turn on the car, or tune an instrument, there’s likely some form of digital technology at work. … Continue reading

Posted in Advertising Law | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Georgia’s Supreme Court Holds Wrongful Death Lawsuit Limited by Previous Personal Injury Settlement

In a recent case, the Supreme Court of Georgia decided that a wrongful death lawsuit can be limited by a previous personal injury settlement. The case is an important decision for Georgia personal injury and wrongful death plaintiffs. The Facts … Continue reading

Posted in Medical malpractice law | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Unsatisfactory rating voided because employee's "performance review," failed to comply with the employer's own procedures and thus undermined the integrity of the process Joyce v City of New York, 2018 NY Slip Op 03433, Appellate Division, First Department The Appellate Division annulled the determination of respondent New York City Department of Education [DOE] sustaining the "unsatisfactory" rating for the 2010-2011 academic year give to John Joyce, a tenured teacher. The court said that the record demonstrates "deficiencies in the performance review process" that resulted in Mr. Joyce being given an unsatisfactory rating for the 2010-2011 academic year. Citing Matter of Gumbs v Board of Educ. of the City Sch. Dist. of the City of N.Y., 125 AD3d 484, and Matter of Richards v Board of Educ. of the City Sch. Dist. of the City of N.Y., 117 AD3d 605, the Appellate Division noted that these deficiencies "were not merely technical, but undermined the integrity and fairness of the process." Mr. Joyce had received a satisfactory rating for the previous academic year and, in contravention of its own procedures, DOE failed to place him on notice that he was in danger of receiving an unsatisfactory rating for the 2010-2011 academic year until after April 28, 2011. Although DOE's procedures required that tenured teachers in danger of receiving an unsatisfactory rating have "formal observations including a pre-observation and post-observation conference by the principal … as part of a prescriptive plan to improve their teaching," Mr. Joyce received only one formal observation which took place one week before the end of the academic year and was not part of a prescriptive plan to improve his performance as a teacher. The decision is posted on the Internet at: http://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2018/2018_03433.htm

Unsatisfactory rating voided because employee's "performance review," failed to comply with the employer's own procedures and thus undermined the integrity of the process Joyce v City of New York, 2018 NY Slip Op 03433, Appellate Division, First DepartmentThe Appellate Division … Continue reading

Posted in Administrative law | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment