United States Second Circuit - February 2001 Opinion Summaries

TCPIP HOLDING CO., INC. v. HAAR COMMUNICATIONS, INC.

Cyberspace Law, Intellectual Property, Trademark
Under the Federal Trademark Anti-Dilution Act, 15 USC 1125(c), weak, non-distinctive, descriptive marks do not qualify for the Act's protection, even...

DONOVAN v. MILK MKTG., INC.

Labor & Employment Law
When a plaintiff presents evidence that age was a factor in his firing and the defendant responds with credible evidence of lawful motivations, the...

WHITFIELD v. SCULLY

Civil Procedure, Civil Rights
28 USC 1915(b)(2), which limits costs to prisoners who file losing lawsuits to 20 percent of their earnings, generally requires sequential collection...

GOINS v. DECARO

Civil Procedure, Civil Rights
A prisoner who complies with the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995, 28 USC 1915(b), and then withdraws his appeal may not obtain a refund of his...

CONBOY v AT&T CORP.

Commercial Law, Communications Law
47 USC 222, which prohibits long distance phone carriers from revealing information about their callers, does not permit recovery of "presumed...

CLARENDON NAT'L INS. CO. v. KINGS REINSURANCE CO., LTD.

Civil Procedure, Dispute Resolution & Arbitration
Under Section 4 of the Federal Arbitration Act, 9 USC 4, a district court's order compelling arbitration is independent and therefore immediately...

US v. JIMENEZ

Criminal Law & Procedure
Under the Sentencing Guidelines, a defendant's criminal history category may be reduced because the prior convictions on which the category was...

MAPP v. RENO

Criminal Law & Procedure, Immigration Law
Federal courts have the same inherent authority to admit habeas petitioners to bail in the immigration context as they do in criminal habeas cases.

S.C. JOHNSON & SON v. CLOROX CO.

Intellectual Property
Under the Lanham Act, defendant's TV commercial that waited seven seconds and then showed plaintiff's resealable bag leaking water is literally...

IN RE: MARIA AGUINDA

Judge who attended a seminar sponsored by non-profit entity that received a minor portion of its funding from defendant company was not required to...