united states – Prosecute Bush Cheney http://prosecutebushcheney.org/ Sun, 17 Apr 2022 08:26:32 +0000 en-US hourly 1 https://wordpress.org/?v=5.9.3 https://prosecutebushcheney.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/cropped-icon-32x32.png united states – Prosecute Bush Cheney http://prosecutebushcheney.org/ 32 32 Indiana Common Law vs. Lanham Law Clash Over Unfair Competition Allegations Covered Same – Intellectual Property https://prosecutebushcheney.org/indiana-common-law-vs-lanham-law-clash-over-unfair-competition-allegations-covered-same-intellectual-property/ Tue, 01 Mar 2022 10:23:14 +0000 https://prosecutebushcheney.org/indiana-common-law-vs-lanham-law-clash-over-unfair-competition-allegations-covered-same-intellectual-property/ United States: The Indiana common law vs. Lanham law fight for unfair competition claims is also covered. March 01, 2022 Khurana and Khurana To print this article, all you need to do is be registered or log in to Mondaq.com. Renee Gabet, Owner of Annie Oakley Businesses (“Plaintiff”) filed a civil lawsuit […]]]>


United States: The Indiana common law vs. Lanham law fight for unfair competition claims is also covered.

To print this article, all you need to do is be registered or log in to Mondaq.com.

Renee Gabet, Owner of Annie Oakley Businesses (“Plaintiff”) filed a civil lawsuit against Amazon Inc alleging the sale of their infringing product on the website of the United States District Court for the Southern District of ‘Indiana, (“Indianapolis Division”, “Court”) under the Lanham Act and the common law of Indiana, which includes an action for trademark infringement, use of an advertising idea, dilution of trademark, false appellation of origin and unfair competition and unfair competition at common law and sought compensation as well as injunctive relief.Rise-n-shine (hereafter RNSO) housed several all-natural solutions for the problems of health, wellness and beauty. Mainly RNSO sold raw materials used to make soap, shampoo and creams. Gradually, RNSO started selling its items on Amazon in 2015 and has continued to do so during the ci nq following years. The seller’s name listed on the webpage was “RISE N SHINE ONLINE LLC”, but sometimes it was listed as “E&E PREMIER DISTRIBUTOR”. The trademark “RISE N SHINE” was used by the plaintiff in its product because it owned the mark. Whereas RISE N SHINE ONLINE LLC and Eric sold the product with a trademark of plaintiff on amazon. Initially, plaintiff brought a trademark infringement action against RNSO and Amazon Inc. It was alleged that RISE N SHINE ONLINE LLC and Eric manufactured, copied, reproduced, sold, offered for sale, publicly displayed, distributed and imported products using a trademark. name RISE N SHINE. Moreover, the same had been sold on the Amazon website. Plaintiffs and RISE N SHINE ONLINE LLC and Eric settled in May 2020, and their claim was denied with prejudice. Subsequently, the complaint against Amazon was only pending in court.

The Court referred Jackson v. Regions Bank, 838 F. App’x 195, 198 (7th Cir. 2021) decision and affirmed the Court’s decision to dismiss the claims that had not been preserved in the Statement of Claims. Accordingly, based on the alleged infringement of Plaintiff’s trademarks, the only claims Plaintiff can pursue are trademark infringement under the Lanham Act and unfair competition under the common law of Indiana and India. other claims have been dropped.

Therefore, this was not a case in which Amazon had invested too much time and reliable resources in building a brand and selling the offending product. Thus, with respect to Amazon’s affirmative defense against cowards, plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment was also granted and the counter-motion was denied.
In CAE, Inc. c. Clean Air Eng’g, Inc., 267 F.3d 660, 673 (7th Cir. 2001), the court observed that to register a mark under the Lanham Act, such a mark would have to be capable of being distinguished from other marks that have prevailed in interstate commerce. Pursuant to 15 USC 1065, the Lanham Act held that a registered mark that was in common commercial use for 5 years became indisputable. However, the protections available for a trademark depend on its distinctive character. Rise ‘n’ Shine’s recording was protectable because its recording was valid in the field. Thus, the court granted the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment and dismissed Amazon’s counterclaim.

Unfair competition claimed under Indiana common law is also covered by the Lanham Act. The court concluded that the key issue was whether the offending product created confusion among customers. The question concerned must be resolved by the investigator. Initially, plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment was denied, along with Amazon’s counterclaim, which was also denied.
In this case, the court observed Amazon’s liability for potential infringement in two ways: direct infringement and indirect infringement. In a direct violation, the court found that potential liability could not be determined in a judgment summary. Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment as well as Amazon’s cross motion were both denied. While Amazon’s cross-motion was partially granted. But in the case of liability for indirect infringement, plaintiff’s summary motion and Amazon’s counterclaim were partly dismissed and partly granted.

Finally, the district court observed that the plaintiff’s motion for interim relief was partly granted and partly denied in direct and indirect violation. However, Amazon’s motion to strike the jury’s claim was granted. The remaining issues had been decided in a bench trial that had been scheduled separately.

The Indiana common law vs. Lanham law fight for unfair competition claims is also covered.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide on the subject. Specialist advice should be sought regarding your particular situation.

POPULAR ARTICLES ON: United States Intellectual Property

Brand comparison guide

Obhan & Associates

Trademark comparison guide for the jurisdiction of India, see our comparison guides section to compare across multiple countries

]]>
Lawmakers confuse common law with equity – Corporate/Commercial Law https://prosecutebushcheney.org/lawmakers-confuse-common-law-with-equity-corporate-commercial-law/ Mon, 14 Feb 2022 08:00:00 +0000 https://prosecutebushcheney.org/lawmakers-confuse-common-law-with-equity-corporate-commercial-law/ United States: The legislator confuses common law with equity February 14, 2022 Allen Matkins Leck Gamble Mallory & Natsis LLP To print this article, all you need to do is be registered or log in to Mondaq.com. Although never a colony of England, California has nevertheless adopted the Common Law […]]]>


United States: The legislator confuses common law with equity

To print this article, all you need to do is be registered or log in to Mondaq.com.

Although never a colony of England, California has nevertheless adopted the Common Law of England as the rule for adjudication in state courts (except where contrary or inconsistent with the Constitution of the United States). United States, or the Constitution or laws of California). Cal. Civil. Code§ 22.2. To see Ahistorical Bedfellows: The California Corporate Code and the Common Law. England also had separate courts of equity and the distinction between law and equity remains important in some contexts. For example, fair questions are generally determined by the judge and not by a jury.

The California legislature appears to have forgotten or ignored the historical differences between law and equity when it enacted the California Revised Uniform Limited Liability Company Act. Section 17703.04(b) of the Companies Code begins by stating “A member of a limited liability company is subject to liability under the common law governing alter ego liability…”. The problem with this provision is that alter ego is a fair doctrine and not common law. To see Alexander v. Carillon Abbey, 104 Cal. App. 3d 39, 48, 163 Cal. Rptr. 377, 381, (1980) (“When considering the application of the alter ego doctrine to a particular situation, it must be remembered that it is a fair doctrine . . “).

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide on the subject. Specialist advice should be sought regarding your particular situation.

POPULAR ARTICLES ON: US Corporate/Commercial Law

Misclassification of Independent Contractor

Benesch Friedlander Coplan & Aronoff

The nuanced distinctions between employees and independent contractors are very important, and recent court decisions and legislative actions have challenged these classifications.

Managing Disputes: Document Drafting Strategies

PC Jones & Keller

As litigators and instructors for the National Institute for Trial Advocacy, we constantly deal with contractual issues to prevent litigation. Over the years we’ve seen what works and what doesn’t…

]]>
Personal Loans Market 2022 Growing Demand, Top Trends with Major Key Players – OneMain Financial, Avant, Payoff, LightStream, Marcus, SoFi, etc. – Cleveland Sports Zone https://prosecutebushcheney.org/personal-loans-market-2022-growing-demand-top-trends-with-major-key-players-onemain-financial-avant-payoff-lightstream-marcus-sofi-etc-cleveland-sports-zone/ Sun, 06 Feb 2022 03:54:47 +0000 https://prosecutebushcheney.org/personal-loans-market-2022-growing-demand-top-trends-with-major-key-players-onemain-financial-avant-payoff-lightstream-marcus-sofi-etc-cleveland-sports-zone/ “ The report’s in-depth research offers insights into the global personal loan market’s development potential, upcoming trends, and statistics. It also shows the variables influencing the overall market size forecast. According to the report, it provides current global personal loan market technology trends and industry insights to help decision makers make informed strategic decisions. Further, […]]]>

The report’s in-depth research offers insights into the global personal loan market’s development potential, upcoming trends, and statistics. It also shows the variables influencing the overall market size forecast. According to the report, it provides current global personal loan market technology trends and industry insights to help decision makers make informed strategic decisions. Further, the market study examines the growth drivers, restraints, and competitive dynamics of the market. The personal loan market research has also identified the major vendors and distributors operating in each of the major geographies. These statistics and research are expected to help players in the Personal Loans market to expand their geographical reach and improve their distribution channels in the market.

Request a sample report here https://www.orbisresearch.com/contacts/request-sample/4854569

Leading Players of the Global Personal Loans Market:

OneMain Financial
Before
To pay
LightStream
Mark
SoFi
Citizens Bank
To earn
Prosper
best egg
Serious
LibertyPlus
To pay
loan club

Additionally, the Personal Loans Market report is based on current comprehensive research investigation. The report is reviewed using primary and secondary research techniques. Thus, primary research may include the development of databases on regional and global personal loan markets, supplemented by interviews with key personnel from top companies around the world. This is complemented with an in-depth review of regional and global regulations, changing buying habits, general economic projections, technological advancements, and environmental implications of the global Personal Loans Market.

The personal loan industry type includes:

Below 5000 USD
5000-50000USD

Personal loan industry applications include:

Less than 1 years old
1-3 years
over the years

This research study offers personal loan market share based on current and projected industry growth. Classifications such as nations, market segments, and product types are also highlighted in the search. This personal loans market study offers a comprehensive review of the major global players in the industry, from top to bottom. Tables, graphs and statistics are provided with the segmentation. The forecasters have analyzed the Personal Loans report to better understand the market trends among other critical aspects.

This study analyzes the competitive landscape of the personal loans industry and provides data on the goods provided by various companies to help clients improve their position in the market. Likewise, this Personal Loans market research report contains information on recent trends and difficulties that may affect the growth of the market. This will help businesses develop plans to maximize their potential growth opportunities. The research provides comprehensive data on the issues that may challenge the development of the market. The analysis of the global personal loans market includes an overview of definition, categorization, drivers, competition, and recent strategic actions. The report sheds light on the potential prospects accessible in the personal loans industry. The Personal Loans market study focuses primarily on key industry leaders and reveals all significant facets of the competitive landscape.

Ask our expert if you have a question at: https://www.orbisresearch.com/contacts/enquiry-before-buying/4854569

The study outlines the company’s effective tactics and methods, consumer preferences, regulations, current moves of rivals, as well as the many investment opportunities and dangers in the personal loan industry. This market report also presents recent market developments and in-depth product analysis. The personal loan market research emphasizes overall values ​​for the current year as well as a likely projection for the projected period.

Key Highlights of the Personal Loans Market report study:

– An in-depth look at the global personal loan industry.
– The report studies the personal loans market and offers its players key actionable insights
– The study considered all the key developments from the present past, helping the consumers to report with the current updates in the personal loan industry.
– The research study is likely to help key decision makers in the Personal Loans market to assist them in the decision-making procedure.

About Us:

Orbis Research (orbisresearch.com) is a one-stop-shop for all your market research needs. We have an extensive database of reports from leading publishers and authors around the world. We specialize in delivering customized reports according to our clients’ requirements. We have complete information about our publishers and therefore are sure of the accuracy of the industries and verticals of their specialization. This helps our clients map their needs and we produce the perfect market research required for our clients.

Contact us:

Hector Costello
Senior Manager – Client Engagements
Central Highway 4144N,
Suite 600, Dallas,
Texas – 75204, USA
Telephone number: United States: +1 (972)-362-8199 | IND: +91 895 659 5155
Email ID: [email protected]

Direct purchase report @ https://www.orbisresearch.com/contact/purchase-single-user/4854569

]]>
The fourth season of the ‘Common Law’ podcast features 4 ‘co-counsels’ https://prosecutebushcheney.org/the-fourth-season-of-the-common-law-podcast-features-4-co-counsels/ Thu, 27 Jan 2022 14:45:34 +0000 https://prosecutebushcheney.org/the-fourth-season-of-the-common-law-podcast-features-4-co-counsels/ Four professors from the University of Virginia School of Law are joining the school’s podcast, “Common Law,” as co-hosts with Dean Risa Goluboff for the fourth season. The show will return on February 3 with Goluboff and Cathy Hwang as hosts for the first episode. Professors Danielle K. Citron, John C. Harrison and Gregory Mitchell […]]]>

Four professors from the University of Virginia School of Law are joining the school’s podcast, “Common Law,” as co-hosts with Dean Risa Goluboff for the fourth season.

The show will return on February 3 with Goluboff and Cathy Hwang as hosts for the first episode. Professors Danielle K. Citron, John C. Harrison and Gregory Mitchell will also rotate in co-host duties this season, which is called “Co-Counsel”.

Goluboff co-host for the first three seasons, Professor Leslie Kendrick ’06, is taking a break from podcasting. To fill this gap, Goluboff wanted to introduce teachers with diverse backgrounds who would help choose the show’s guests and topics.

“That’s why we decided to call this season ‘Co-Counsel’,” Goluboff said. “All of our co-hosts bring their own expertise to the table and add their own flavor – and it’s so much fun to record.”

This season’s guests include UVA law professors Aditya Bamzai, Quinn Curtis, Kristen Eichensehr, Mitu Gulati, Andrew Hayashi, John T. Monahan and Megan T. Stevenson. Also featured will be graduates Doriane Nguenang ’21, partner at Baker McKenzie, and Neil Richards ’97, professor at Washington University in St. Louis School of Law. Anita L. Allen of the Carey Law School at the University of Pennsylvania, Elizabeth F. Loftus of the University of California at Irvine, Tom R. Tyler of Yale Law School, Jennifer Mascott of George Mason University Antonin Scalia Law School and Tara Leigh Grove from the University of Alabama.

Who will interview whom? Make your guesses now. Episodes will be released every two weeks throughout the spring and summer.

“We’ll have episodes on law and psychology, privacy, national security law, administrative law, constitutional law, taxation, sovereign debt, financial regulation and more,” Goluboff said. “There is so much variety, and it was a pleasure to meet jurists who have had an impact on our own faculty here at UVA Law.”

About new co-hosts

Citron, a MacArthur Scholar, is the Jefferson Scholars Foundation Schenck Professor Emeritus of Law and the Caddell and Chapman Professor of Law at UVA, where she writes and teaches on privacy, free speech, and civil rights. She is the author of the books “Hate Crimes in Cyberspace” and the upcoming “The Fight for Privacy: Protecting Dignity, Identity, and Love in the Digital Age”.

Hwang’s research and teaching focus on business law, including mergers and acquisitions, corporate contracts, and corporate governance. She recently co-taught a January term course on corporate law topics from the Emmy-winning show “Succession.” Hwang is the Barron F. Black Research Professor of Law.

Prior to joining the faculty, Harrison worked for the United States Department of Justice, including as Assistant Deputy Attorney General in the Office of Legal Counsel. His teaching subjects include Constitutional History, Federal Courts, Remedies, Corporations, Civil Procedure, Legislation, and Property. An alumnus of AVU’s undergraduate program, Harrison also served as an international law adviser to the Office of the Legal Counsel at the U.S. Department of State. He is the James Madison Professor of Law Emeritus and the Thomas F. Bergin Professor of Law.

Mitchell, who holds a JD and Ph.D. in psychology from the University of California, Berkeley, teaches courses in civil litigation and law and psychology, and his fellowship focuses on legal judgment and the decision-making, the psychology of justice, and the application of social science to legal theory and policy. He is Joseph Weintraub-Bank of America Professor Emeritus of Law and Joseph C. Carter, Jr., Research Professor of Law.

About the show

“Common Law” is available at Apple podcast, embroiderer, Youtube, Spotify and other popular places where you can listen to podcasts, including Amazon Alexa devices. The show is produced by Emily Richardson-Lorente.

Listeners can follow the program on the site CommonLawPodcast.com or Twitter at @CommonLawUVA.

]]>
COVID-19 Analysis for Global Personal Loans Market 2022-2031 https://prosecutebushcheney.org/covid-19-analysis-for-global-personal-loans-market-2022-2031/ Tue, 25 Jan 2022 06:02:08 +0000 https://prosecutebushcheney.org/covid-19-analysis-for-global-personal-loans-market-2022-2031/ New Jersey, United States,- Market Research Intellect has released a new publication on the personal loan market, titled “2022 Personal Loan Market Analysis and Forecast”. The publication provides an in-depth assessment of the global Automotive Chassis Dynamometer Market based on competition, market dynamics, market segmentation, and other vital aspects. The market research report is a […]]]>

New Jersey, United States,- Market Research Intellect has released a new publication on the personal loan market, titled “2022 Personal Loan Market Analysis and Forecast”. The publication provides an in-depth assessment of the global Automotive Chassis Dynamometer Market based on competition, market dynamics, market segmentation, and other vital aspects.

The market research report is a compilation of comprehensive intelligence studies that explore almost every aspect of the global personal loans market. Market players can use the report to learn more about the competitive landscape and level of competition in the Personal Loans Market. The report comes as a powerful tool that players can use to prepare to carve out a lion’s share of the global personal loan market. Additionally, it assesses each segment of the Personal Loans market in detail so that readers can be informed about future opportunities and high growth areas in the industry. Furthermore, it offers a comprehensive study of crucial market dynamics, including growth drivers, restraints, challenges, trends, and opportunities.

Get | Download Sample Copy with TOC, Charts and List of Figures @ https://www.marketresearchintellect.com/download-sample/?rid=181148

The authors of the report provide an encyclopedic overview of the main regional markets and their evolution over the past few years. Readers are provided with accurate facts and figures related to the Personal Loans market and its important factors such as consumption, production, revenue growth, and CAGR. The report also shares gross margin, market share, attractiveness index, and value and volume growth of all segments studied by analysts. It highlights key developments, product portfolio, markets served and other areas that outline the business growth of the major companies profiled in the report.

The report has been prepared using the latest primary and secondary research methodologies and tools. Our analysts rely on government documents, white papers, press releases, reliable investor information, financial and quarterly reports and public and private interviews to collect data and information relating to the market in which they working.

Key Players Covered in Personal Loans Markets:

  • LightStream
  • SoFi
  • Citizens Bank
  • Mark
  • LibertyPlus
  • To pay
  • OneMain Financial
  • Before
  • Prosper
  • loan club
  • best egg
  • Serious
  • To pay
  • To earn

Personal Loans Market Split By Type:

  • Below 5000 USD
  • 5000-50000USD
  • Above 50000USD
  • Marlet

Personal Loans Market Split By Application:

  • Below 5000 USD
  • 5000-50000USD
  • Above 50000USD
  • MarketLightStream
  • SoFi
  • Citizens Bank
  • Mark
  • LibertyPlus
  • To pay
  • OneMain Financial
  • Before
  • Prosper
  • loan club
  • best egg
  • Serious
  • To pay
  • To earn

The Personal Loans Market report has been segregated into distinct categories such as product type, application, end-user, and region. Each segment is valued based on CAGR, share, and growth potential. In the regional analysis, the report highlights the prospective region, which is expected to generate opportunities in the global personal loans market in the coming years. This segmental analysis is sure to prove to be a useful tool for readers, stakeholders, and market players to get a complete picture of the global Personal Loans market and its growth potential in the coming years.

Get | Discount on the purchase of this report @ https://www.marketresearchintellect.com/ask-for-discount/?rid=181148

Scope of the Personal Loans Market Report

Report attribute Details
Market size available for years 2021 – 2028
Reference year considered 2021
Historical data 2015 – 2019
Forecast period 2021 – 2028
Quantitative units Revenue in USD Million and CAGR from 2021 to 2027
Segments Covered Types, applications, end users, and more.
Report cover Revenue Forecast, Business Ranking, Competitive Landscape, Growth Factors and Trends
Regional scope North America, Europe, Asia-Pacific, Latin America, Middle East and Africa
Scope of customization Free report customization (equivalent to up to 8 analyst business days) with purchase. Added or changed country, region and segment scope.
Pricing and purchase options Take advantage of personalized purchasing options to meet your exact research needs. Explore purchase options

Regional Personal Loans Market Analysis can be represented as follows:

Each regional Personal Loan industry is carefully researched to understand its current and future growth scenarios. This helps players strengthen their position. Use market research to get a better perspective and understanding of the market and target audience and ensure you stay ahead of the competition.

Based on geography, the global Personal Loans market has been segmented as follows:

    • North America includes the United States, Canada and Mexico
    • Europe includes Germany, France, UK, Italy, Spain
    • South America includes Colombia, Argentina, Nigeria and Chile
    • Asia Pacific includes Japan, China, Korea, India, Saudi Arabia and Southeast Asia

Answers to key questions in the report:

  • What is the growth potential of personal loan markets?
  • Which product segment will take the lion’s share?
  • Which regional market will impose itself as a precursor in the years to come?
  • Which application segment will grow at a rapid pace?
  • What are the growth opportunities that may emerge in the Lock Washers industry in the coming years?
  • What are the main challenges that the global personal loan markets could face in the future?
  • Who are the leading companies in the global personal loan market?
  • What are the key trends that are positively impacting market growth?
  • What are the growth strategies considered by the players to maintain their hold on the global Personal Credit market?

For more information or query or customization before buying, visit @ https://www.marketresearchintellect.com/product/global-personal-loans-market-size-forecast/

The study thoroughly explores the profiles of major market players and their major financial aspects. This comprehensive business analyst report is useful for all existing and new entrants when designing their business strategies. This report covers the Personal Loans market production, revenue, market share and growth rate for each key company, and covers the breakdown data (production, consumption, revenue and market share) by regions, type and apps. Historical personal loan breakdown data from 2016 to 2020 and forecast to 2021-2029.

About Us: Market Research Intellect

Market Research Intellect provides syndicated and customized research reports to clients from various industries and organizations, in addition to the goal of providing customized and in-depth research studies. range of industries including energy, technology, manufacturing and construction, chemicals and materials, food and beverage. etc Our research studies help our clients to make decisions based on higher data, to admit deep forecasts, to grossly capitalize with opportunities and to optimize efficiency by activating as their belt in crime to adopt a mention precise and essential without compromise. clients, we have provided expert behavior assertion research facilities to more than 100 Global Fortune 500 companies such as Amazon, Dell, IBM, Shell, Exxon Mobil, General Electric, Siemens, Microsoft, Sony and Hitachi.

Contact us:
Mr. Edwyne Fernandes
USA: +1 (650)-781-4080
UK: +44 (753)-715-0008
APAC: +61 (488)-85-9400
US toll free: +1 (800)-782-1768

Website: –https://www.marketresearchintellect.com/

]]>
There is more than one way to skin a disloyal cat: The Common Law Duty of Loyalty Claim Saves the Day – Intellectual Property https://prosecutebushcheney.org/there-is-more-than-one-way-to-skin-a-disloyal-cat-the-common-law-duty-of-loyalty-claim-saves-the-day-intellectual-property/ Mon, 13 Dec 2021 08:00:00 +0000 https://prosecutebushcheney.org/there-is-more-than-one-way-to-skin-a-disloyal-cat-the-common-law-duty-of-loyalty-claim-saves-the-day-intellectual-property/ [ad_1] United States: There is more than one way to skin a disloyal cat: the common law duty of loyalty claim saves the day December 13, 2021 Archer and Greiner PC To print this article, simply register or connect to Mondaq.com. We often answer clients’ questions on how best to protect their business interests, including […]]]>


[ad_1]

United States: There is more than one way to skin a disloyal cat: the common law duty of loyalty claim saves the day

To print this article, simply register or connect to Mondaq.com.

We often answer clients’ questions on how best to protect their business interests, including their trade secrets. We do not take a one-size-fits-all approach and the advice we give depends on the needs and circumstances of our clients. We take this approach because companies have three sometimes overlapping, but distinct, means of protection: restrictive covenants (for example, non-compete, non-disclosure, and non-solicitation agreements); statutes; and common law.

It is important for companies to keep this in mind in order to maximize the precautions they can take against employees leaving to take up positions with the competition. In the event that legal action is required, it is important for businesses to make all possible arguments. In some cases, the former employee may not have signed a restrictive covenant. In other cases, the conduct of the former employee may not be covered by applicable law. In these cases, the common law could still provide the protections the business needs. We have already written about the common law obligation of employees to refrain from using or disclosing confidential information and how an employer can potentially prevent an employee leaving the competition from using that information, even in the absence of a non-compete agreement.

A recent New Jersey case in federal court further illustrates how a company can successfully invoke another common law obligation to prevent an departing employee from unfair competition, this time using the duty of loyalty.

In SFX Installation, Inc. v Pimental, 2021 WL 4704964 (DNJ 8 October 2021), the employer has installed specialized laboratory equipment. The former employee worked there for four years, starting as a helper and being promoted to foreman. As a foreman, the former employee had access to the employer’s VPN, which contained information on the company’s prices, offers and proposals, and the company’s storage facility.

While still employed by the company, the former employee secretly formed a new company to compete. He solicited business for his new business by contacting the employer’s clients. He also conducted some business for his new business during his employer’s time, using the employer’s employees and resources. He also posted photos of his work for the employer on his new company’s social media page.

The employee ultimately resigned, citing personal reasons and not mentioning his new business. When the employer learned of the new business from his own clients, he sued for injunction and damages. Since the company did not require the former employee to sign a restrictive covenant, its complaint alleged that the former employee had violated the Defend Trade Secrets Act (“DTSA”) and the New Jersey Trade Secrets Act. (“NJTSA”) and asserted common law allegations of tortious interference with the contract, conversion and breach of the duty of loyalty.

The court dismissed the employer’s claims under the DTSA and NJTSA on the grounds that the employer failed to sufficiently allege that the installation of laboratory equipment was a protectable trade secret, as opposed to general industry knowledge not protectable. In addition, although the former employee had access to the employer’s trade secrets (for example, information on customers, prices and offers), the former employer did not present sufficient evidence that the he former employee actually used them.

However, the rejection of the statutory claims did not end the analysis, as the employer also asserted common law claims. The duty of loyalty prohibits employees from acting against the interests of their employer during their employment. On this point, the employer has sufficiently asserted a complaint. The former employee admitted to soliciting and performing work for the employer’s clients, and that work constituted the majority of the business of the new company.

In addition, the employer alleges that the former employee used the employer’s resources for his new business. For example, the employer presented receipts from EZ Pass and Home Depot showing that the former employee was working and shopping for their new business during the days and times listed on their tally sheet for the employer. He used the company’s cell phone for his new business calls. He used some of the employer’s equipment to perform work for his new business and he advertised his new business by posting photos of the work performed for the employer.

Following the request for a duty of loyalty, the Court granted the employer’s request for a preliminary injunction. This case presents some valuable lessons. First, it shows that it is not necessarily necessary for a restrictive covenant to be in place for an employer to succeed in a case against an unfair former employee. Second, although there is often an overlap between statutory and common law claims, sometimes the conduct of an disloyal former employee can go against the common law without violating a law. It is important that employers are aware of and assert all possible claims when filing a lawsuit. This is especially true where the conduct of the former employee is particularly egregious, as was arguably the case here.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide on the subject. Specialist advice should be sought regarding your particular situation.

POPULAR ARTICLES ON: United States Intellectual Property

Expired patents can be challenged

Jones Day

Although it may seem counterintuitive, the PTAB has jurisdiction over expired patents, and patent holders may need to defend their expired patents in an inter partes examination.

Trademark Comparison Guide

Obhan & Associates

Trademark comparison guide for the jurisdiction of India, see our comparison guides section to compare multiple countries

[ad_2]

]]>
The Common Law Duty of Loyalty Claim Saves the Day – Employment and HR https://prosecutebushcheney.org/the-common-law-duty-of-loyalty-claim-saves-the-day-employment-and-hr/ Wed, 24 Nov 2021 08:00:00 +0000 https://prosecutebushcheney.org/the-common-law-duty-of-loyalty-claim-saves-the-day-employment-and-hr/ United States: Common law duty of loyalty claim saves the day November 24, 2021 Archer & GreinerPC To print this article, all you need to do is be registered or log in to Mondaq.com. We often answer customer questions about how best to protect their business interests, including their trade secrets. We do not take […]]]>

United States: Common law duty of loyalty claim saves the day

To print this article, all you need to do is be registered or log in to Mondaq.com.

We often answer customer questions about how best to protect their business interests, including their trade secrets. We do not take a one-size-fits-all approach and the advice we give depends on the needs and circumstances of our clients. We take this approach because companies have three sometimes overlapping but distinct means of protection: covenants (eg, non-competition, non-disclosure, and non-solicitation agreements); statutes; and common law.

It’s important for companies to keep this in mind in order to maximize the precautions they can take against employees leaving to take up positions with competitors. In the event that a lawsuit is necessary, it is important that companies make all possible arguments. In some cases, the former employee may not have signed a restrictive covenant. In other cases, the former employee’s conduct may not be covered by applicable law. In these cases, the common law may still provide the protections the company needs. We have already written on a common law duty of employees to refrain from using or disclosing confidential information and how an employer can potentially prevent a departing employee from using that information, even in the absence of a non-disclosure agreement. competetion.

A recent case from New Jersey in federal court further illustrates how a company can successfully invoke another common law duty to restrain an employee leaving unfair competition – this time using the duty of loyalty.

In SFX Installation, Inc. vs. Pimental, 2021 WL 4704964 (DNJ 8 Oct. 2021), the employer installed specialized laboratory equipment. The former employee worked there for four years, first as a helper and was promoted to foreman. As a foreman, the former employee had access to the employer’s VPN, which contained information about the company’s prices, offers and proposals, as well as the company’s storage facility.

While still employed by the company, the former employee secretly formed a new company to compete. He solicited business for his new business by contacting the employer’s customers. He also conducted some activities for his new business on his employer’s time, using the employer’s employees and resources. He also posted photos of the work he did for the employer on his new company’s social media page.

The employee eventually quit, citing personal reasons and not mentioning his new company. When the employer heard about the new business from its own customers, it sued for injunctive relief and damages. Because the company did not require the former employee to sign a covenant, its complaint alleged that the former employee violated the Defense of Trade Secrets Act (“DTSA”) and the on New Jersey Trade Secrets (“NJTSA”) and asserted common law allegations of tort of breach of contract, conversion and breach of duty of loyalty.

The court dismissed the employer’s claims under the DTSA and NJTSA on the basis that the employer had failed to sufficiently allege that the installation of laboratory equipment was a protectable trade secret, as opposed to general non-protectable industry knowledge. Further, although the former employee had access to the employer’s trade secrets (e.g. customer information, prices and offers), the former employer did not present sufficient evidence that the former employee was actually using them.

However, the dismissal of the statutory claims did not end the analysis, as the employer also asserted common law claims. The duty of loyalty prohibits employees from acting against the interests of their employer during their employment. As such, the employer has sufficiently asserted a claim. The former employee admitted that he solicited and performed work for the employer’s clients, and that this work constituted the majority of the business of the new company.

In addition, the employer alleged that the former employee had used the employer’s resources for his new business. For example, the employer presented receipts from EZ Pass and Home Depot showing that the former employee performed work and made purchases for his new business during the days and times indicated on his time card that he worked. for the employer. He used the employer’s company cell phone to make calls for his new business. He used some of the employer’s equipment to do work for his new business and he advertised his new business by posting pictures of work done for the employer.

Following the claim for the duty of loyalty, the Court granted the employer’s request for a preliminary injunction. This case offers some valuable lessons. First, it shows that a restrictive covenant need not be in place for an employer to succeed in a case against a disloyal former employee. Second, although there is often an overlap between legal claims and common law claims, sometimes the conduct of a disloyal former employee may violate the common law without violating any statute. It is important that employers are aware of and assert all possible claims when pursuing legal action. This is especially true where the former employee’s conduct is particularly egregious, as was arguably the case here.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide on the subject. Specialist advice should be sought regarding your particular situation.

POPULAR ARTICLES ON: Employment and HR in the United States

Florida Labor and Employment Law 2021 Year-End Review

Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP

There have been several significant labor and employment law developments in the last year in the State of Florida, including minimum wage changes, new hire reporting requirements,…

]]>
Buyer Beware: Federal Common Law of Successor Liability May Create Unexpected Liability Dechert srl https://prosecutebushcheney.org/buyer-beware-federal-common-law-of-successor-liability-may-create-unexpected-liability-dechert-srl/ Wed, 20 Oct 2021 07:00:00 +0000 https://prosecutebushcheney.org/buyer-beware-federal-common-law-of-successor-liability-may-create-unexpected-liability-dechert-srl/ [ad_1] Key points to remember: The Third, Sixth, Seventh and Ninth Circuit Courts of Appeal have recognized the doctrine of successor liability in federal common law for claims brought under certain federal labor and employment statutes, including the Fair Labor Standards. Act, Title VII, the Family and Medical Leave Act. , and the Employees Retirement […]]]>


[ad_1]

Key points to remember:

  • The Third, Sixth, Seventh and Ninth Circuit Courts of Appeal have recognized the doctrine of successor liability in federal common law for claims brought under certain federal labor and employment statutes, including the Fair Labor Standards. Act, Title VII, the Family and Medical Leave Act. , and the Employees Retirement Income Security Act, among others.
  • Successor liability in federal common law is broader than traditional state concepts of successor liability in that it does not require community of ownership between a predecessor and a successor corporation; substantial business continuity may be sufficient to support the responsibility of the successor.
  • Thus, structuring a transaction as a sale of assets rather than a merger or equity investment may not necessarily be sufficient for an acquirer to evade liability for certain federal claims if the key personnel, assets and general business operations remain the same or substantially similar after the transaction is closed.
  • In Central Illinois Pipe Trades Health & Welfare Fund v. Prather Plumbing & Heating, Inc., No. 20-252 (7th Cir. July 7, 2021), the Seventh Circuit continued to recognize the federal common law doctrine of successor liability, but rejected the idea that it could provide an independent basis for federal jurisdiction over the matter.
  • Counsel for the plaintiffs and others can be expected to test the limits of the doctrine in seeking to apply it to other federal causes of action that “flow” from federal law.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit recently delivered a remarkable decision in East Central Illinois Pipe Trades Health & Welfare Fund v. Prather Plumbing & Heating, Inc. on the application of successor liability in federal courts.1 The responsibility of the successor in federal common law is a exception the general rule in virtually all US jurisdictions that the buying company (i.e. the acquirer) in an asset sale transaction does not not assume the liabilities of the selling company (i.e. the acquiree) simply by acquiring ownership of the assets.2 Federal courts of appeal, including the Third, Sixth, Seventh and Ninth Circuits, have provided an exception to this general rule and have recognized that “where liability is based on a violation of a federal labor relations law or employment, a common federal law The law standard of successor liability applied is more favorable to plaintiffs than most state law standards that the court might otherwise consider.3 According to this approach, successor liability can be found even in the context of an actual sale of assets. if (1) the successor has been notified of the claim, (2) there is “substantial continuity in the operation of the business before and after the sale” and (3) the predecessor cannot provide the relief requested.4 Federal courts of appeal have applied this framework to federal labor and employment claims arising from the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA),5 Title VII,6 the law on family and medical leave (FLMA),7 and the Employees Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA),8 among others.

As a relevant example, the district court of Prather plumbing held that the availability of successor liability at federal common law was a “close call” for plaintiffs who had obtained a default judgment on the ERISA claims against a target asset-selling company that had ended up with little ‘assets as a result of a sale transaction and brought a separate action against the purchaser of those assets.9 Although the owners of the companies involved in the asset sale transaction were father and son and the son was made aware of the possible liabilities of his father’s company, the district court saw “a grave injustice in imposing a judgment of nearly US $ 300,000 due solely to the purchase of only US $ 25,024 of impaired physical assets ”and ultimately refused to impose successor liability.ten Other courts, however, have balanced the actions the other way around and have imposed successor liability on the buyers of the assets. Indeed, the Seventh Circuit recently underlined that “when the successor company knows the responsibility of its predecessor, knows the precise extent of this responsibility and knows that the predecessor itself would not be able to pay a judgment obtained against it , the presumption should be in favor of the responsibility of the successor.11

In its appeal decision in Prather plumbing, the seventh circuit panel did not reach the equity to impose the responsibility of the successor. Instead, the court considered whether the plaintiffs’ single claim alleging the federal common law doctrine of successor liability constituted an allegation “under” federal law for the purposes of establishing federal jurisdiction over successor liability. question. In a unanimous opinion, the Seventh Circuit concluded that it lacked jurisdiction in the matter, citing the earlier decision of the United States Supreme Court in Peacock c. Thomas, 516 US 349 (1996), where this Court found that an argument for piercing the corporate veil did not provide “federal question” jurisdiction in the absence of an underlying federal cause of action. , such as that arising from federal labor or employment laws.12 Likewise, the Seventh Circuit found that the applicants in Prather plumbing did not allege a breach of ERISA against the asset acquirer, but simply invoked successor liability as a “means of imposing liability on the basis of a cause of action underlying ‘they had previously won against the predecessor company.13 Although the responsibility of the successor “implied federal law[,] . . . it does not necessarily follow that federal law also created a cause of action enforce this doctrine in federal court.14 As such, notwithstanding the fact that the plaintiffs cited ERISA in their declaration of jurisdiction, nothing in this law actually provided for legal action based on successor liability.15 Thus, the Seventh Circuit overturned the district court’s judgment and returned with instructions to dismiss the action for lack of federal jurisdiction.

Although the decision of the Seventh Circuit in Prather plumbing may reduce the potential for successor liability in federal common law by excluding it as a source of federal questioning jurisdiction to bring an action in federal court, this form of liability is indeed present in at least four of the courts of law. federal circuits, including appellate courts that cover major jurisdictions such as Cincinnati, Chicago, Detroit, Los Angeles, Philadelphia, and San Francisco. When conducting due diligence on an acquisition, companies and M&A participants should take note of the potential liability of the successor under federal labor or employment laws, even when a transaction is structured as a sale of assets, if substantial business continuity is an expected result. It is also to be expected that the plaintiffs et al. Will attempt to extend the doctrine of successor liability in federal common law to other federal causes of action which “arise” from federal law. This all serves as a further reminder of the importance of not only performing in-depth due diligence when completing an asset acquisition, but also the importance of seeking adequate representation and collateral coverage (including on matters implied by federal law), as well as remedies for breach.

Footnotes

1) E. Hundred. Illinois Pipe Trades Health & Welfare Fund v. Prather Plumbing & Heating, Inc., n ° 20-252, 3 F.4th 954 (7th Cir. 2021).

2) William M. Fletcher et al., Fletcher Cyclopedia of Law of Private Corporations § 7122 (rev. Vol. 2008).

3) Teed v. Thomas & Betts Power Sols., LLC, 711 F.3d 763, 764 (7th Cir. 2013); see also Einhorn v. ML Ruberton Const. Co., 632 F.3d 89, 94 (3d Cir. 2011); Guarantee of pension benefits. Corp. vs. Findlay Indus., Inc., et al., 902 F.3d 597, 609-11 (6th Cir. 2018); Sullivan v Dollar Tree Stores, Inc., 623 F.3d 770, 780-81 (9th Cir. 2010).

4) EEOC c. GKG, Inc., 39 F.3d 740, 747-48 (7th Cir. 1994); see also Teed, 711 F.3d at 765-66.

5) See Ted, 711 F.3d at 765-66.

6) See Wheeler v. Snyder Buick, Inc., 794 F.2d 1228, 1236 (7th Cir. 1986).

7) See Sullivan, 623 F.3d at 786-87.

8) See Einhorn, 632 F.3d at 96-100; Pension Fund of the International Union of Upholsterers c. Artistic furniture, 920 F.2d 1323, 1327-28 (7th Cir. 1990).

9) E. One hundred. Illinois Pipe Trades Health & Welfare Fund & Plumbers v. Prather Plumbing & Heating, Inc., n ° 1: 18-CV-01434, 2020 WL 4060766, at * 8 (CD Ill. July 17, 2020).

ten) Identifier. to 10.

11) Ind. Elect. Workers’ Pension Fund v ManWeb Servs., Inc., 884 F.3d 770, 783 (7th Cir. 2018) (emphasis added) (citing Worth vs. Tyer, 276 F.3d 249, 260 (7th Cir. 2001)).

12) Prather plumbing, 3 F.4th at 959-60 (citing Peacock c. Thomas, 516 US 349 (1996)).

13) Username. to 960.

14) Username. (emphasis added).

15) Username. to 961.

[ad_2]

]]>
DC Circuit Rejects New Applications for Common Law Immunity by Private Contract Agents of Foreign Sovereigns Suspected of Participating in State-Sponsored Hacking Program https://prosecutebushcheney.org/dc-circuit-rejects-new-applications-for-common-law-immunity-by-private-contract-agents-of-foreign-sovereigns-suspected-of-participating-in-state-sponsored-hacking-program/ https://prosecutebushcheney.org/dc-circuit-rejects-new-applications-for-common-law-immunity-by-private-contract-agents-of-foreign-sovereigns-suspected-of-participating-in-state-sponsored-hacking-program/#respond Wed, 08 Sep 2021 07:00:00 +0000 https://prosecutebushcheney.org/dc-circuit-rejects-new-applications-for-common-law-immunity-by-private-contract-agents-of-foreign-sovereigns-suspected-of-participating-in-state-sponsored-hacking-program/ [ad_1] In a notable ruling regarding the extent to which U.S. citizens acting on behalf of foreign sovereigns can claim immunity from civil lawsuits under U.S. law, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit upheld the refusal by the district court of ordinary foreign immunity in Broidy Capital Management LLC v. Muzin, n […]]]>


[ad_1]

In a notable ruling regarding the extent to which U.S. citizens acting on behalf of foreign sovereigns can claim immunity from civil lawsuits under U.S. law, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit upheld the refusal by the district court of ordinary foreign immunity in Broidy Capital Management LLC v. Muzin, n ° 20-7040 (September 3, 2021). The ruling denied immunity requests from US lobbyists and public relations officers suspected of participating in a foreign government-sponsored hacking and media smear campaign targeting a US citizen on US soil.

The ruling sets strict limits on the ability of private contractors to claim derivative foreign state immunity under federal common law. Particularly where the foreign government has not sought immunity from the State Department or otherwise sought legal protection for its alleged agents, U.S. private contractors of a foreign government bear an especially heavy burden to establish common immunity. law. And the complete lack of established practice in the United States to recognize the immunity of these private contractors, coupled with the absence of allegations that the foreign government specifically directed the tort conduct in question, supported the refusal of the immunity.

The plaintiffs in this case are Elliott Broidy, an American businessman who once served as vice president of finance for the Republican National Committee, and his company. The complaint alleged that in response to the complainants’ harsh criticism of the State of Qatar’s support for terrorist organizations, Qatar retaliated with the aim of damaging Broidy’s reputation. The complaint alleged a scheme in which Qatari-sponsored hackers infiltrated Broidy’s computer networks and stole confidential information. Aided by the defendants – US lobbyists and public relations professionals – the conspirators then distributed pirated materials to the media in an attempt to destroy Broidy’s reputation and his ability to influence US policy towards Qatar.

In one of a series of conspiracy cases, Broidy sued several US citizens (and a US public relations consultancy) allegedly involved in the Qatari venture in a District of Columbia Federal District court. . The complaint alleged violations of California state law as well as federal laws, including the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), the Stored Communications Act, the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, and the Defend Trade Secrets Act. The defendants claimed they were immune from prosecution for their alleged role in the Qatari business and requested dismissal, arguing both “derivative” foreign sovereign immunity and common law immunity. “foreign officials”. The district court rejected both forms of immunity and concluded that several of the plaintiffs’ claims had been sufficiently argued and could therefore continue to be discovered.

The DC Circuit upheld the district court’s denial of immunity in a unanimous opinion from Judge Pillard, joined by Justices Randolph and Walker.

In dismissing the defendants’ immunity claims, the court began by recognizing that immunity is not available under the Foreign Sovereign Immunity Act (FSIA). Quoting Samantar v. Yousuf, 560 US 305, 325 (2010), the court noted that the FSIA deals with immunity only for foreign states and their subdivisions and agencies or political bodies, and not for individuals. As Samantar However, individuals can also claim immunity under common law.

Under Samantar, these claims are governed by a two-step analysis. First, the court asks if the US State Department made a “suggestion of immunity” on behalf of the defendants. If this is the case, the court will generally respect this suggestion and dismiss the lawsuit. But there was no suggestion of immunity here. Indeed, the Court considered “notable” that Qatar, “on whose behalf the defendants are said to have acted, has shown no interest in this case, whether by requesting a formal suggestion of immunity or otherwise”.

The DC circuit therefore proceeded to Samantar ‘s second stage, in which a court must decide for itself whether immunity is appropriate. Second-step courts typically seek to determine whether the asserted immunity claim is an established State Department policy to recognize, including reviewing past State Department decisions regarding immunity. Here, the DC Circuit concluded that past State Department practice did not support immunity for individuals where, like here, the foreign state did not seek immunity on their behalf and they simply acted as arm’s length entrepreneurs for that foreign state. Notably, the Court ruled that foreign official immunity could not be based on the mere fact that certain defendants were registered for Qatari agents under the Foreign Agents Registration Act: “[N]the State Department has never suggested, nor has this court ruled, that registered foreign agents are entitled to sovereign immunity of their principals under the law. ”

Finally, the “close ties of the parties and claims against the United States” count against immunity. The defendants were all US citizens, and the court cited previous State Department statements that those enjoying the protections of US law should normally be subject to the jurisdiction of US courts when they violate US law, especially when being sued by other US citizens for driving in the United States. None of these factors can be determinative by themselves, but taken together they weigh heavily against common law immunity.

The DC Circuit also rejected the defendants’ alternative argument, which invoked an alleged doctrine of “derivative” foreign sovereign immunity. The court raised significant doubts as to the existence of such a doctrine, derived from cases involving American entrepreneurs claiming immunity from the federal government: “This court has never suggested that a doctrine of immunity derivative could apply in the context of foreign sovereign immunity ”. But even if that were the case, the domestic entrepreneur business from which it would derive only allows such derivative immunity when the contested actions have been “specifically ordered” or “directed” by the foreign sovereign. This was not the case here, where (according to the complaint) the defendants’ agreement with Qatar left them a great deal of latitude in how to achieve their objectives.

Broidy strongly suggests that U.S. citizens and residents who violate U.S. law as agents of foreign sovereigns will not be able to claim foreign conduct-based immunity at common law absent a suggestion of immunity from the Department of ‘State. And the ruling leaves claims of foreign sovereign immunity “derivative” on uncertain grounds in the DC circuit, but clearly denying such immunity in the absence of clear claims that the foreign government directed the conduct at issue.

[ad_2]

]]>
https://prosecutebushcheney.org/dc-circuit-rejects-new-applications-for-common-law-immunity-by-private-contract-agents-of-foreign-sovereigns-suspected-of-participating-in-state-sponsored-hacking-program/feed/ 0
Barbarian law goes beyond civil law in Afghanistan https://prosecutebushcheney.org/barbarian-law-goes-beyond-civil-law-in-afghanistan/ https://prosecutebushcheney.org/barbarian-law-goes-beyond-civil-law-in-afghanistan/#respond Sat, 21 Aug 2021 07:00:00 +0000 https://prosecutebushcheney.org/barbarian-law-goes-beyond-civil-law-in-afghanistan/ [ad_1] Indeed, people are bewildered by the “dramatic” developments in Afghanistan during the week. Although the fall of the democratically elected government of Ashraf Ghani was imminent sooner or later after the withdrawal of American troops, the magical speed with which the turn of events occurred in the Pashtun country speaks volumes about the plot. […]]]>


[ad_1]

Indeed, people are bewildered by the “dramatic” developments in Afghanistan during the week. Although the fall of the democratically elected government of Ashraf Ghani was imminent sooner or later after the withdrawal of American troops, the magical speed with which the turn of events occurred in the Pashtun country speaks volumes about the plot. and behind the set of curtains.

That’s right, the self-proclaimed guardian and liberator of the Afghans, the United States had had enough of its two decades of sojourn in this troubled land called Afghanistan. But, what is more surprising is the complete failure of the Doha fabrications between the stakeholders, namely the United States, the elected government and the Taliban. Other stakeholders such as India, Pakistan, China and Russia were also hopefully awaiting political developments. At one point, it was said that the Taliban made sure to adopt peaceful methods of governance if the ruling government agreed to the changing of the guard.

However, hopes for a peaceful transition of power were dashed. What is even worse are the large-scale bloodshed, looting, bombing and the imposition of strict restrictions on the liberty of people, especially women. Amid the soft surrender of over 3.5 lakh by Afghanistan’s well-equipped defense forces to just 45,000 barbarian Taliban, confusion was confused after President Ashraf’s lock, stock and cannon leaked Ghani. Like the American forces who deliberately offered the “farewell gift” of arms, tanks and transport vehicles to the barbarian barefoot Taliban, the then president, who had a duty to defend the Constitution, left the country leaving the unfortunate people lurching.

There is nothing to be gained by saying that US President Joe Biden took this unfortunate step of withdrawing US forces from Afghanistan because what he did is what his predecessor Trump decided in January 2019. Donald Trump officially threw a “crocodile”. ‘tears for US soldiers stationed in Afghanistan, when other neighboring countries like Pakistan, India, China and Russia had done nothing significant to confront the Taliban. This belated realization was supported by the argument of a colossal financial loss of the superpower. Well, 20 years ago no one, including the Afghans themselves, had “invited” foreigners, including the United States, to their country. If the United States chose to invade Afghanistan, it had its own reasons for doing so, of course some valid ones. But to blame other nations for not doing their best in Afghanistan seems like asking too much. The United States must blame itself for creating the monster, called the Taliban, in order to tackle the dreaded Al Qaeda.

The Indian government’s position has been fairly consistent since the 9/11 incident, although its intensity has varied from one elected regime to another. Today, as the United Nations, the Commission on Human Rights and other NGOs championing the cause of freedom, human rights, women’s empowerment, children’s health and safety , the well-being of people with disabilities, etc. certainly a cause for concern.

Obviously, all nations including India, USA, Pakistan, Russia, China, France, Japan, etc. are blamed for their inaction, lack of unity and harmony in solving the problem and focus only on their own individual interests. Although much noise is made time and time again by world leaders and powerful nations, the bum with the Taliban and their terrorist forces behind the curtain has canceled out all the positive effects.

Therefore, even now, it is not too late for the World Committee to realize that terrorism is a global phenomenon and that no peaceful treatment of this issue could generate the desired results, namely peace and peace. harmony in the world. Civil laws are meant to create and support civil society and violence has no place on earth because it is the result of barbaric laws.

SC on article 170 of the CrPC

The Supreme Court bench comprising Justice Sanjay Kishan Koul and Justice Hrishikesh Roy observed that personal freedom was an important aspect of the constitutional mandate. Disagreeing with the view of the court of first instance that unless a person is taken into custody the indictment cannot be registered, the judiciary observed that Article 170 of the CrPC does not require the responsible officer to arrest each accused at the time of the filing of the indictment. The opportunity to arrest an accused during the investigation arises when a detention investigation becomes necessary or in a heinous crime or when there was a possibility that the accused influenced witnesses or that the accused might be involved. flee, the court added.

Stressing the importance of personal freedom, the Supreme Court added: “If the arrest is routine, it can cause untold damage to a person’s reputation and self-esteem. If the investigator has no reason to believe that the accused will run away or disobey the summons… why should the police be forced to arrest the accused? ”

Supreme Council to Young Lawyers

In all cases, a lawyer should be prepared to argue the case in court; although he or she may request the adjournment of the case due to the unavailability of the lead counsel, said Judge DY Chandrachud, while reacting to an oral prayer from a young lawyer for the adjourning of a case on the grounds that the lead lawyer was unable to address the court that day and the said junior lawyer did not go through the case file.

The judiciary composed of Judge Chandrachud and Mr. R. Shah offered this useful advice to all young lawyers in the country. The court said his advice was without malice against any particular lawyer, but it was sort of aged advice to the young legal fraternity.

[ad_2]

]]>
https://prosecutebushcheney.org/barbarian-law-goes-beyond-civil-law-in-afghanistan/feed/ 0