Conflict Of The Case Of Online Defamation

be described. Jurisdictional requirements for this case as well as the reasons why it was heard at

The following laws have been developed over a number of years and occasionally come about as responses of cases being highlighted in the media:

In this paper I will discuss a case involving Henry, a resident of Nevada, who sued Adam, a resident of Utah in the Federal Court in California. Henry sought $60,000 damages for personal injuries arising from an automobile accident that occurred in Los Angeles, California. I will answer the following questions about this case. Does the Federal Court have jurisdiction? What rules of procedure will the court use? Why? And what rules of substantive law will the court use? One of the most essential questions of law is whether a given court has jurisdiction to preside over a given case. Jurisdiction means the power to hear a case. Many courts

&his would not apply as the plainti' lives in New (ork. $owever" the long)arm statute could be enacted to gain jurisdiction over Funny Face who originates out of California *+ubasek" p. ,-./ubject matter jurisdiction refers to the nature of the claim or controversy. /ubject matter jurisdiction is the power of a court to hear particular types of cases. Federal courts deal with admiralty" bankruptcy" disputes of state against state" disputes against the 0./." disputes of federal law" etc. None of these categories apply. 1 diversity)of)citi2enship case must meet both re#uirements that the plainti' does not livein the same state as the defendant" and the case controversy issues cannot e!ceed 345"666. &his could apply as both parties reside in di'erent states" and if there is a product safety concern" medical costs and damages could easily e!ceed 345"666 *+ubasek" p. ,,.7inimum contacts is the contact re#uired between a party and a state in order for the courts of that state to constitutionally assert power

In the case of Margolin v. Novelty Now the appropriate court for this lawsuit depends upon several factors. In personal jurisdiction the book states that the courts are given the power to provide a decision in affecting the rights of individuals (Kubasek). In this case, the court will give a decision giving rights to Mr. Margolin, and taking rights from Novelty Now. For subject matter jurisdiction, a certain specified court will be able to hear the case This means, that it must be decided which court hears the case, whether state or federal jurisdiction. Since this case contains three different states, the federal court system must be the one to hear the case. In this case, minimum contacts must be determined to decide if a certain state will have power to assert personal jurisdiction over a defendant from another state (Kubasek). In this case, it must be decided if New York will take personal jurisdiction of the defendants residing in California, or Novelty Now residing in Florida.

In this case, the victims of the cyber-scam are all residents within the state of Delaware. As such, there should be no dispute about the state of Delaware as the primary venue for court proceedings. However, if there is a dispute about which venue to use within the state of Delaware, a forum selection clause may be employed to solve the dispute. If the defense feel that a venue is unfair towards their client, a contract known as a forum selection clause can be used to come to an agreement about a local venue (Craig,

The law of defamation in Australia has, until recently, lacked uniformity. Given the advances in technology and the growth of national publications, the pressure for

n.d.) In this paper, I will discuss three cases where the defendant was found guilty of

The present claim is related to an insurance agreement. The trial Court conceded the defense of lack of personal jurisdiction presented by the Defendant, Allstate Insurance Company (Allstate) in an amendment to its answer. James Gross (Gross), the Plaintiff appealed the decision. We are now move to determine whether the Superior Court of Camden County erred in dismissing the Complaint on the basis that the Defendant did not have minimum contacts with the forum, and consequently the Court did not have personal jurisdiction over it. We found that the trial court erred in granting the dismissal of the Complaint based on such grounds. In its decision the trial Court applied the “minimum contacts” test as contemplated in International Shoe

"United States v. Alvarez." Oyez. Chicago-Kent College of Law at Illinois Tech. Web. 11 Dec.

The source of law that I believe this case applies to based on the facts provide would be case

Furthermore, prosecuting individuals for statements made on the internet would squander taxpayers’ money. As “The Dangers of Cyber bullying” noted, “Congresswoman Linda Sanchez is sponsoring the Megan Meier Cyber Bullying Prevention Act.” Although some may say that financing the court system for the prosecution of “social media bullies” is necessary, it is proven that will also waste money and time. Surely, individuals should not be penalized for statements made on the internet.

Jurisdiction is the most prominent issue for enforcement officers to deal with international crimes stemming from the deep web. There are illegal markets for gambling, weapons, explosives, assassinations, exotic animals, terrorism and hacktivism all of which can be accessed by anyone in the world if they knew the right ways to get in. The darknet has an international customer base, and cases can get even more complicated when criminals from different countries start to work together. Questions of which country’s law should be followed and what punishment should be given arise, and not all parties involved end up satisfied. While it is impossible to please everyone with a trial and punishment, having an international court disfuses any issue concerning jurisdiction in order to deal with the criminal.

Jurisdiction refers to the authority that courts have in order to have the ability to try cases and make verdicts. The importance of jurisdiction in international courts cannot be stressed enough. It is essential to have proper jurisdiction so that every international case is reviewed carefully and fairly. Many issues are present in this area such as the failure of cooperation between nations along with the failure of nations to create a proper process for the jurisdiction in international courts. Another pressing issue would be exercising of jurisdiction by two countries with failure to recognize which country has jurisdiction.

Remedies represent some interesting illustrations of the difference between law and equity; a difference which arose as; ‘an accident of history,’ according to Lord Nicholls in A-G v Blake. Ordinarily legal rights and remedies remain separate from equitable ones. Some similarities do, nevertheless, occur. For illustration, an injunction, an equitable remedy, can be sought for an anticipatory breach of contract, or to stop a nuisance, both common law claims. In A-G v Blake, the House of Lords authorized the equitable remedy of account of profits for an assertion for violation of contract where the common law remedy of damages would have been insufficient. The equitable remedy of account of profits is usually accessible where there is a fiduciary relationship but the House of Lords endorsed its request otherwise in exceptional cases where it was the operative way to remedy a wrong. By distinction, in Seager v Copydex, proceedings were brought for breach of confidence in regard for confidential information exposed by the defendants about a carpet grip. Such a claim is equitable and normally the equitable remedies of injunction and account are obtainable. On the other hand, an injunction would have been unsuccessful and he judges awarded damages. It would appear, consequently that a common law remedy is