Widebrone V Clearfone Case

The firm took the case and went to work. The first hearing ruled that Beatrice Foods wasn’t to be held accountable, just W.R. Grace Company,

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

FACTS: Fox wanted to request a tax opinion and other accounting services and so he met with a

Parties to the Case, Facts of the Case, and Business Reasons for the Dispute (30 points)

D.A case between a citizen from Maine and a citizen from Rhode Island, where the claim is more than $75,000.

What role did the individual or group play in taking this case to court? What/ who encouraged them?

Procedural History: U.S. District Court for the Western District of Virginia granted judgment in favor of defendants. U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed, holding that the respondents’ refusal to pay the

The Court ruled on the side of the Defendant, the Federal Communication Commission and it was a unanimous vote. Justice White wrote for the Court and he wrote that it was not possible to leave radio waves ungoverned by the fairness doctrine due to the spectrum scarcity. The

The relationship between the parties is radio listener vs. radio station, the court case is between the petitioner Federal Communication Commission vs the Respondent Pacifica Foundation

When the case finally got to the supreme court they were looking at the case

The case U.S. vs AOL was a criminal case that included civil litigation. The AOL

Although the $105 million settlement was nothing like the $1.4 billion the labels had agreed a fair trial amount as the maximum penalty, the companies were hoping that the case will act in discouragment to further the plagarism since Mark Gorton, a former

The Supreme Court recognizes the defendant’s motives were used to persuade and encourage internet users to engage in illegal acts. “The evidence that Grokster and StreamCast, unlike the manufacturer and distributor in Sony, acted with purpose to cause copyright violations by use of software suitable for illegal use” (Jennings, 2010 p. 8.). The lower court decision was based on conflicting court interpretation regarding the Betamax defense. The ruling was misunderstood at the time. The Supreme Court noted thatGrokster and StreamCast continuously advertised to user’s computers while the users were using their programs. As the number of users increased the value of the advertising increased as well. Grokster andStreamCast made no effort to

The case was set in Michigan during the 80s and it involved Theodore Sherwood (Plaintiff),

2. Describe briefly the history of the litigation of this case (which courts heard the case, which way did they rule, what court is now deciding the case, which judges are hearing the case in this court)?