CourtSide - The FindLaw Breaking Legal News Blog

Recently in Federal Courts Category

It's safe to say that most Americans didn't know what an emolument was before Donald Trump became president, and even fewer knew there was an Emoluments Clause in the Constitution. But as the legal case accusing Trump of violating that clause moves forward, we're guessing more of us will brush up on professional ethics reading.

A slew of subpoenas were issued relating to that lawsuit, so it's probably a good time to remind you what the case is about, and what the subpoenas potentially mean. And you can get a look at those subpoenas below.

Google is often cited as an innovator in the tech industry, and most entrepreneurs and small business owners would love to know how the company trains its staff. And copycats were in luck, until recently.

Google created resource materials for its management training and development program, including a New Manager Program Participant Workbook, New Manager Program Facilitator Guide, and New Manager Presentation Slides, and then posted them to the internet and made them available for download, free of charge.

The only problem? The tech giant illegally appropriated those training techniques from a 50-year-old manual on Saharan survival techniques. The "Desert Survival Situation" has been used as a training and team-building tool for almost half a century by a company named Human Synergistics. That company is now claiming that Google stole their system and turned it into training materials without permission or payment. Here's a look at that lawsuit.

Google Sued for Google+ Leak

It didn't take long. Mere hours after Google announced it was shutting down Google+ after a security breach exposed the private details of half a million users, the first lawsuit hit a federal court in San Francisco. The proposed class action, filed by two former users, claims "a software glitch ... gave third-party application developers access to private Google+ profile data between 2015 and March 2018," allowing app developers to "improperly collect the Personal Information of up to 500,000 Google+ users."

The allegations include negligence, invasion of privacy, and violations of California's Unfair Competition Law. You can see the full lawsuit below.

Imagine you live somewhere far from traditional services, and have a sick pet. And imagine there is an experienced veterinarian -- one that had received a Health Service Commendation Medal from the Surgeon of the United States, in fact -- available to answer your questions about your sick pet online. That's pretty great, right?

Now imagine that the Texas State Board of Veterinary Medical Examiners says this vet's advice is illegal, suspended his license, and fines him $500. Not so great, right? That's why Ronald Hines, a 75-year-old veterinarian in Brownsville who's been diagnosing pet ailments via his website for the past 10 years, is now filing his second lawsuit against the Board, claiming his online pet advice is protected speech under the First Amendment.

But will this challenge be more successful than the last?

The fight over net neutrality continues, and the battleground has moved to the Golden State. Last year, President Trump's Federal Communications Commission overturned Obama-era regulations that prohibited internet service providers from charging users different prices based on the user, content, or website. Then this year the Senate voted to reinstate net neutrality rules. All the while, California was crafting its own net neutrality legislation, a bill Governor Jerry Brown signed into law over the weekend.

But the feds aren't too pleased with the state action on the matter, and the Justice Department has already filed a suit seeking to block California's net neutrality law. You can see the lawsuit below.

If the whole net neutrality battle seemed a bit esoteric for you, here's a real-world example of how the Federal Communications Commission's repeal of net neutrality rules could impact everyone. Verizon admitted to dramatically slowed down data speeds for Santa Clara County firefighters during recent Mendocino Complex wildfires, telling the department it should pay more for a better data plan. The practice, known as "throttling," happened even though the department already had an unlimited data plan, and Verizon allegedly had a policy in place to remove data speed restrictions when contacted in emergency situations.

But while Verizon called it a "customer support mistake," Santa Clara County Counsel James Williams said it "has everything to do with net neutrality." and the Santa Clara County Fire Department has joined a lawsuit against the FCC seeking to overturn the recent repeal of net neutrality rules. You can see their declaration below:

Last month, the New York City Council passed a new law requiring Airbnb and similar lodging platforms to share data on their users, including the names and addresses of all its hosts, the rental listing URL, the number of days the unit is rented, and how much the platform collects in fees.

Naturally, Airbnb was a bit resistant to this request, and this week filed a federal lawsuit in New York, claiming the law violates constitutional free speech and search and seizure protections. You can see that lawsuit below:

In 2009, the National Academy of Sciences released a report concluding that almost all commonly used forensic techniques, including handwriting analysis, have never been properly scientifically tested. And yet, the State of New Hampshire was requiring untrained local election moderators review and compare handwritten signatures on absentee ballots, and reject ballots with questionable signatures.

That practice will now be ended, after a federal court ruled the procedure unconstitutional. The court found "the current process for rejecting voters due to a signature mismatch fails to guarantee basic fairness," and you can see the full ruling below:

In June, the Supreme Court vacated a Colorado Civil Rights Commission decision finding that Jack Phillips, owner of Masterpiece Cakeshop, violated the civil rights of a gay couple by refusing to bake a same-sex couple a cake for their wedding. Rather than ruling that business owners have a right to discriminate against customers based on sexual orientation or gender identity, the Court found that the Commission was too hostile to Phillips' claims of religious beliefs.

Just a few short weeks later, Phillips and his cake shop are back in court, this time over his refusal to bake a cake for an attorney celebrating the anniversary of her decision to come out as transgender. Although the incident occurred a year before the Supreme Court ruling, Colorado cited Phillips for again violating state civil rights laws by declining to create that cake. Now he is suing the state and government officials, claiming "Colorado has been on a crusade to crush [him] because its officials despise what he believes and how he practices his faith."

You can see the suit below.

By now, one would think judges are familiar with the process of transgender children changing their name, and that, absent some improper motive, judges must grant these petitions. And yet ...

Three mothers have filed a federal lawsuit against Juvenile Court Judge Joseph W. Kirby in Ohio, claiming he "has a pattern and practice of treating name change requests from transgender adolescents differently than other name change requests," and denying every request he hears. You can see the full lawsuit below.