Thicke v. Marvin Gaye’s Estate Lawsuit Marvin Gaye family accused Robin Thicke of using elements of Marvin Gaye’s song, “Got to Give It UP” in “Blurred Lines” and allegedly threatened litigation if a monetary settlement was not paid. Thicke filed a preemptive declaratory judgment lawsuit against Gaye’s family after alleged preliminary settlement negotiations failed. In response, Gaye’s family filed a separate counterclaim accusing Thicke of copyright infringement of Gaye’s songs “Got to Give It Up” and “After the Dance”, as well as EMI April, Inc. of breach of contract and its fiduciary duties. Gaye’s family later submitted a separate counter claim against Thicke to include “Blurred Lines” co-writers Pharrell Williams and Clifford Harris, Jr. After a jury trial, Marvin Gaye’s family was awarded $7.4 million in copyright damages and attributable to infringement. The Gaye’s family was not awarded determined due to the infringement was found not to be willful.
For example, Hobby Lobby sued the government so that they “would not have to provide coverage for contraceptives for its employees” under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (Strine, 2015, p. 91). They ultimately won their case in Supreme Court. The decision the Supreme Court made in the Hobby Lobby case supported the need for an insurance exchange in the open market. The hurdle then becomes the obstacle some states are posing by not developing exchanges. In
of needing government aid (Player 2014). The fourth amendment of the Constitution states that there is no legal search without prior suspicion. Forcing drug tests without first evidence of necessity, some would argue infringes on these individuals’ rights. Abuse of the system unfortunately occurs very often. People who use the money they receive on things not necessary for their families constitutes as abusing their aid.
This compromise offers more transparency, as states can have the right to either support or be against ban on gays. Each state has different laws and views about the issue, according to Public Discourse website, it states “Some states have laws that forbid discrimination based on sexual orientation. The Scouts’ traditional policy runs afoul of such laws and was in fact challenged as a violation of New Jersey’s anti-discrimination laws in the latter part of the 1990s.” (Public Discourse). Therefore, BSA should take a different route to justify its behavior against gays ban. Thus, BSA can set up meetings with its funders such as UMC church, and work on a decision whether to allow LGBT people or even girls to participate in BSA.
There was no punitive damages received. It was stated, “California law would not extend negligence liability to a manufacturer in this circumstance, and the district court properly awarded summary judgment. For the foregoing reasons, we conclude that the district court properly awarded summary judgment in favor of TASER because the risk of lactic acidosis was not knowable in 2003. Thus, we do not reach TASER’s alternative arguments. AFFIRMED.” Taser International Inc. cannot be held liable, based on the information available at the time, for not issuing warnings that repeated exposure to its product could lead to death, said an appellate court, in upholding dismissal of a 2004 wrongful death lawsuit.
Good politicians will tell you they do not lead on issues. They simply find out where everyone else is headed and then get out front. Enter presidential candidate Mike Huckabee. Reversing his position from the 2008 presidential campaign, Huckabee now says that he is open to medical marijuana and that states should be permitted to legalize recreational adult use marijuana without interference from federal authorities. As a Baptist minister Huckabee personally opposes legalization but as a presidential candidate his is getting out in front of the issue.
Many people turn to religion for not just spiritual answers, but for guidance and help in everyday life. Religion also affects the inner workings of a society. However, religion has evolved with time. In earlier societies, only one religion was usually allowed and accepted. In Salem Massachusetts during the Witch Trials, every citizen had to be seen as a good Christian.
“Outside of the marriage context, can you think of any other rational basis, reason, for a state using sexual orientation as a factor in denying homosexuals benefits or imposing burdens on them? Is there any other rational decision-making that the government could make? Denying them a job not granting them benefits of some sort, any other decision?” “Your Honor, I cannot.” This dialogue is between Supreme Court justice Sonia Sotomayor and Charles Cooper, the lawyer who defended Proposition 8 in the recent case on whether California’s ban on gay marriage was constitutional. Currently there are sixteen states that allow gay marriage, however there are 33 that outright ban it. Inequality is obviously present, the basis of denying some the custom of marriage on who they wish to
The opposers argued that this violated the establishment clause of the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States while the proposers argued that the Commandments represented moral and legal foundations of the society. The U.S courts continuously ruled that the Ten Commandments excluded other religions not related to Judeo-Christian religions. However, the courts did not rule against the display of the Ten Commandments in relation to the historical context of the development of
Both Christian and Islam scriptures talk about sexual morality and how homosexuality is something looked down upon. Because of these scriptures, their followers form a stigma towards the non-heterosexuals. Especially with Christians, whenever they are in argument regarding homosexuality, the use of “the bible says so” seems to be a common statement they use to try to justify any acts against their beliefs. It is clear how these scriptures becomes a big influence on how these religious followers think. In the Islam scriptures, they take what is written almost literally.
In our society, gay marriage opposers are notorious for citing “religious freedom” in order to not serve the LGBT community, and by and large we have accepted this. By bringing a somewhat obscure religion- Hinduism- into the discussion, Von Drehle is able to give the reader a better picture of what Davis is actually doing- and by forcing the reader to recognize that for anything else, citing religious freedom would not be an excuse to not perform one’s duties as an elected official in a community. By starting out with a question to the reader rather than an opinion he wishes the
Hobby Lobby Stores Inc. which the U.S Supreme Court finally agreed to pay attention to. It was against their religious beliefs which they held on to dearly. The Green family was said to be providing 4 deadly drugs which they didn’t deny doing. The Green Family lets their beliefs lead them in business so they do what they believe in. In 2012, they had also signed a business filed suit to defend their religious freedom under The Constitution and Federal Law.
Although the state disregarded the Full Faith and Credit clause, the court upheld the argument because the couple had not established bona fide residence in Nevada. To become a legal, bona fide resident of a State, one must reside there for the state’s required amount of time and have the intentions of residing there permanently or at the least, indefinitely. Williams and Hendrix clearly did not intend to do so. As a result, the two were convicted of bigamous cohabitation. The defendants, Williams and Hendrix, were prosecuted for bigamous cohabitation by the state of North Carolina.
(hhs.gov pg,4) “The AKS is a criminal law that prohibits the knowing and willful payment of “remuneration” to induce or reward patient referrals or the generation of business involving any item or service payable by the Federal health care programs (e.g., drugs, supplies, or health care services for Medicare or Medicaid patients.” You might not think computers are remunerated, but any product that helps earn revenue is considered monetary. She is taking a personal gain for herself by getting a discount for her husband because she works for a company that partakes with the Federal health care program.