Импланты AnyOne Томск Каспийская

Not finding a safe place in the aisle, she ran into a freezer. Thinking that wasnt safe enough--after all, she probably saw the movie, Cujo--Ms. Outlaw leaped on top of the freezer. In her Quixotic quest to escape Armageddon, Ms. Outlaw exacerbated a previously existing hip injury, and decided to sue Penny Pinchers and Cindy Scott, the store manager who owned the attack dog.

A Mississippi state court jury found for Ms. Outlaw and awarded her ,, finding Penny Pinchers 70 percent at fault and Ms. Scott 30 percent to blame. Remember at the beginning we told you it would help if you knew a little about the dog?

Baby Weiner DogIt turns out this allegedly ferocious attack dog was nothing more than a four-month-old Dachshund puppy. A little weiner dog weighing four pounds. It seems Ms. Scott brought the adorable puppy named Sophie to work every day. The pleasant little puppy had never attacked anyone before. Scott kept Sophie behind the counter--not to protect customers, but so that no one would step on the little thing. Rather than a pound Rottweiler with a spiked collar, Ms.

Outlaw jumped on top of a freezer in mortal fear of a tiny weiner dog puppy. Given this fact pattern, Penny Pincher and Ms. Scott decided an appeal was in order. Outlaw: Did the presence of the four-month-old Dachshund puppy create an unreasonably dangerous condition at Penny Pinchers that day? The court noted that the Mississippi Supreme Court had held that dogs are not dangerous per se. Grayson that to impose liability on a dog owner for personal injuries, a plaintiff must show the dog had a propensity for violence and that the owner knew it.

The court in Penny Pinchers noted that the four-month-old, four-pound bundle of love, Sophie the Weiner Dog, had a clean record. Darnell, the court went on to hold that a premises does not have to be completely safe from any hazardonly reasonable safeand that the plaintiffs own actions can be a factor.

The law of defamation can be complex, but a New York state court recently tried to sort out this weighty issue: What is a "dirtbag," and is the term defamatory? The issue arose after a man named William Schumacher penned comments that another man, John Acheson, was "the biggest dirtbag" he had ever met in his life. Acheson sued Schumacher before Westchester City Court in what, amusingly, could become a seminal case of black letter law.

Apparently, no other U. Court has ever issued a reported decision on the issue of whether it is defamatory to call someone a "dirtbag. Schumacher said libel or defamation was "a writing or broadcast that tends to expose the plaintiff to public hatred, contempt, ridicule, or disgrace. Without offering any citation, the court defined "dirtbag" as "an informal term" meaning "a dirty, grimy, sleazy, or disreputable person.

Did Schumacher mean that Acheson was the physically largest of the dirtbags he had known? Or perhaps just one of the most powerful? The court surmised also that Schumacher may have believed Acheson to be "just a tad worse" than the other dirtbags he had known. The point the court was making was that -- in any case -- these statements would all be opinions.

Citing the case of Gilliam v. Richard M. Greenspan, P. In Gilliam, one lawyer penned a nastygram, saying unflattering things about another lawyer. The court held it was opinion and threw out the case. In Lund v.

Chicago and Northwest Transp. In National Recruiters Inc. Cashman, the Minnesota Supreme Court found it slander when a plaintiff was called "a no-good loser; a no-good son of a bitch" in the context of an employment reference. Other courts are more hostile toward such lawsuits.

They lost on the grounds that a reasonable person would not have taken the photo and caption to mean Evel was literally a pimp and Krystal his prostitute, despite their year age difference and his rose-tinted glasses in the photo. There was once a professor who reminded his students that the bubonic plague was all natural.

Various merchants--from sellers of cereal to purveyors of popcorn--claim their products are "all natural. Activist ice creamIn the s, childhood friends Ben Cohen and Jerry Greenfield took a correspondence course in ice cream making. Then they scraped up 12,, opened an ice cream shop in an old Vermont gas station, and delivered dairy products in a station wagon.

Was born, and, as they say, the rest is history. In , Ben and Jerry sold the company to Unilever. Although they are now very rich dudes, Messrs. Cohen and Greenfield and their ice cream operation still conjure up images of granola, Birkenstocks, peace signs, and Dutch chocolateAlthough Amsterdam may be more famous for Rembrandt, the Rijksmuseum, and reefers, some people believe the Netherlands is also famous for Dutch chocolate.

But, does anyone really know what Dutch chocolate is? Chocolate is produced when seeds from cocoa beans are fermented and dried and mixed with fat and powdered sugar. Cocoa powder can be made in two forms: unalkalized cocoa or Dutch-process alkalized cocoa. The unalkalized cocoa is made by merely pressing the beans. The process produces a light brown, very acidic powder. Dutch-process cocoa, on the other hand, is produced by cocoa nibs with a mild alkali solution to raise the pH and thus, lower the acidity.

This process improves taste, color and solubility, but it also destroys many of the flavonols, which are believed to have health benefits. All Natural? Breyers did not. They alleged violation of both federal and California law in the labeling of the ice cream as all natural even though its cocoa contained potassium carbonate from the alkanization process. The ice cream makers argued that "all natural" was a term of art under FDA and U. Astiana was merely an ice cream lover and not a federal regulatory expert.

The only FDA guidance appears to be a distinction between natural and synthetic in the policy, but that definition in the Federal Register is qualified as meaning something that would not normally be expected to be in food. Surely, that characterization raises multiple linguistic and philosophical questions, not to mention factual questions," U.

District Judge Phyllis Hamilton wrote for the court. What have we learned this week? Well, according to the U. It seems to be a simple question. Get a bunch of lawyers and judges involved, and it becomes anything but. What about when that motor vehicle is attacked by a swarm of bees? It seems he was having a bit of a problem with a beehive.

Corpus asked Officer Mata to accompany him to the hive with the swarming army of displeased bees. Officer Mata insisted Mr. Corpus accompany him to the hive. Officer Mata donned protective gear and approached the hive of danger, but he instructed Mr.

Corpus to remain safely in the animal control vessel as the engine remained running. Things would have been just fine and dandy had Officer Mata not done something that may have been somewhat unwise. Insects Attack! Not unlike a Saturday Morning Super Hero decked out in protective gear as he makes Saturday mornings safe for kiddie sales of sugary cereal and overpriced toys, Officer Mata approached the hive in his protective animal control gear.

Then, the swashbuckling hero of animal protection began spraying the bees. Guess what happened next? Shockingly, the bees attacked. But, no worries. Officer Mata was protected by his animal control gear. The problem was what Officer Mata did next. To escape the mighty swarm, Officer Mata ran to the truck, opened the door, and hopped in. The only problem, of course, was that, when he opened the door to the animal control truck, he let in a bunch of very angry bees--who proceeded to have a field day biting the [expletive deleted] out of the unprotected corpus of Mr.

Corpus was not amused. What do unamused people do in this column? They sue. The Law of Bees and CarsMr. Operating a motor vehicle? What about spraying the bee hive and opening the truck door so the bees could turn Mr. Corpus into a walking, talking pin cushion. Actually, Mr. Corpus had a smart lawyer. Governments waive sovereign immunity for certain activities.

Basically, you can sue the government only if the government says you can sue the government. One of the exceptions to sovereign immunity in Texas is for operation of motor vehicles. If Mr. So just what does it take to be operating a motor vehicle? If you asked a bunch of convicted drunk drivers, they would probably tell you Officer Mata was operating the animal control truck. Bud or Bees?

For instance, in People v. Oh yeah, he also had a cooler full of marijuana on the front seat. Wood at first. Both a trial court and an intermediate state appellate court threw out the evidence against him, holding he was not operating his van at the time of the arrest and search. However, the Michigan Supreme Court reversed both courts and held Mr. In doing so, the court reversed two previous Michigan cases that held one could not be sleeping and operating a motor vehicle at the same time.

Actual physical control of the vehicle is the standard used by many jurisdictions, and in Illinois, Michigan, Minnesota, and Nevada, that control can be maintained while sleeping. Putting the key in the ignition will get you in some states, including Vermont. In the Vermont Supreme Court case, State v.

Helton, one hapless, inebriated fellow was convicted of DUI for merely putting his keys in the ignition to roll up his car windows--after he had gone to retrieve his vodka from the car. Note to self: appoint a designated sober window operator. So what about Officer Mata, was he in control of the vehicle and thus operating it for purposes of Mr.

Corpus bee attack case? Departing from the case law of other states, both the trial court and the Texas Thirteenth Court of Appeals said "no. Corpus was injured when the bees entered the cab of the truck where he happened to be sitting. Either way, its not a Happy Meal. As a public service to help our readers remain free from bondage, we will, from time to time, present our Case of the Week: Fourth Amendment Follies edition. Druggies from CharlotteRobert Little was traveling through the pleasant North Carolina hamlet of Thomasville early one August morning in It might not have been any big deal, but it was in the morning, and Mr.

Little was driving an old Buick with a malfunctioning headlight. Bonus reader helpful hint! Bad things will happen. At least wait until when the first batch of doughnuts comes off the conveyor belt at the local Krispy Kreme. Because Mr. Officer Kallfelz observed three things that made him decide it was time for back-up. First was Mr. Second, Mr. Little said he was traveling from Charlotte. Finally, Mr. Little had approximately 10 tree air fresheners hanging from the rear-view mirror.

Before we get to those pesky air fresheners, please allow us to defend the good people of Charlotte, North Carolina. But, back to those tree air fresheners. Rambo RaidA nervous dude driving from Charlotte with 10 air fresheners made Officer Kallfelz realize he needed a crime deterrent. It was time for Rambo. Not unlike Sylvester Stallone searching swamps for sadistic Viet Kong alumni, Rambo, a drug dog, went over that old Buick like a frat boy going through sofa cushions looking for that lost last joint.

Little was arrested for being a felon in possession of a firearm. Little moved to suppress the evidence, arguing the search was illegal, but a trial court denied the motion, holding that the stop and the search were lawful. Little appealed. Little argued in State v. Little that the search was improper because the cornucopia of air fresheners did not provide reasonable suspicion for extending the stop until Rambo arrived.

Unfortunately for Mr. Little, North Carolina has a proud tradition of air freshener jurisprudence. In State v. Hernandez, the North Carolina Court of Appeals held a stop was proper when it was based, at least in part, on Christmas tree air fresheners. Not unlike with Mr. I noticed a strong odor coming from the vehicle," Trooper Whitley testified in defending his actions.

Christmas tree air fresheners as a basis for detaining a motorists? Well, the court upheld the stop, and the court in Little followed the court in Hernandez. And, if you think North Carolina is the only state fighting the war on air freshener, you would be wrong. In Commonwealth v. Watts, the Massachusetts Appeals Court held reasonable suspicion could be based, in part, on the presence of fabric softener drier sheets.

The federal courts have joined this attack on pleasant aromas as well. In United States v. West, the Tenth Circuit proclaimed, "The Tenth Circuit has consistently held that the scent of air freshener is properly considered as a factor in the probable cause analysis, and in the Eleventh Circuit held in United States v. Wright that evidence of a drug conspiracy existed based partially on the fact that two persons entered the Winn-Dixie together to purchase carpet freshener and fabric softener; materials known to be used to mask the odor of cocaine.

Many other federal circuits, including the Third, Fifth, Seventh, Eighth, and Ninth, have upheld convictions based, in part, on the presence of fabric softener, and in United States v. She brought along a box of Bounce fabric softener sheets. If you have contraband and notice Rambo sniffing your car, ditch the fabric softener Bounce can get you busted.

But what if your employer hoisted a sign informing customers there would be a two-dollar charge for your services? Would that payment be your tip? Would posting that sign get somebody sued? Of course, it would. This is the Case of the Week. Air a la carteOur story begins in Sept. Before this policy began, curbside check-in was free, but customers tipped the skycaps--usually a dollar per bag--for curbside service. Until American went and messed up things, most skycaps earned most of their earnings from tips.

As the airline industry faced significant financial problems, airlines began charging for many services that had been free. This a la carte fee system affected everything from headphones to handbags. Want to watch the in-flight movie? No problem. Want to hear it? Two dollars for headphones, please. Want to eat? Pay up. At the moment, we can add curbside check-in to our non-complimentary airline a la carte menu. American--and its subcontractor actually employing the skycaps--made out like Tijuana bandits.

The charge was designed to defray the cost of curbside service in a dark and dreary economy, but it actually became a profitable business venture for all Others felt 2. The end result was the same: the skycaps lost a significant amount of their income as tips plummeted. Laws, ch. The skycaps argued Massachusetts law prohibited American from charging the curbside baggage fee because the fee qualified as a service charge under the commonwealth law because it was a fee that a consumer would reasonably expect to be given to the skycap.

American countered that the skycaps suit was preempted by the federal Airline Deregulation Act of When a federal law preempts a state law on an issue, the federal statute has sole jurisdiction, and the state statute is preempted and nullified for purposes of that dispute. The District Court held for American on several grounds, but held for the skycaps on the preemption argument. Thus, the claims under the Massachusetts tips law and for tortious interference were tried to a jury.

Big TippersIt turned out the jury was a bunch of big tippers. The jury found for the skycaps in April and awarded damages in the amount of 2. Thus, the jury awarded the nine prevailing plaintiff skycaps approximately , in damages plus interest and attorney fees.

One plaintiff skycap from the St. Louis airport did not get to share in the bounty because--as a citizen of Missouri--he was not covered by the Massachusetts tip law. But, our story is not over. Cheap tippers can rejoice. American appealed, and the First U.

Circuit Court of Appeals handed down a decision bound to make Parisian tourists do a happy dance. American Airlines, Inc. Although the appellate court conceded there was conflicting case law, it relied on three U. Supreme Court cases, Morales v. Trans World Airlines, Inc. Wolens, and Rowe v. New Hampshire Motor Transport Assn, in holding that the federal law preempted the Massachusetts tip statute vis--vis the skycaps tips.

When the Supreme Court invoked the rubric "tenuous, remote, or peripheral", it used as examples limitations on gambling, prostitution, or smoking in public places--state regulation comparatively remote to the transportation function," the court said. Even if you pay an airline curbside baggage fee, please, folks, tip your skycap.

It keeps colonial constables out of our tea, J. Edgar Hoover and the FBI out of our mothers underwear drawers, and seizure-hungry sheriffs out of our Chevys. Yet, as with anything, the Fourth Amendment is not absolute. The Fourth Amendment prohibits only unreasonable searches.

In fact, the Fourth Amendment has a specific clause allowing searches with probable cause. A recent Massachusetts case gets to be our Case of the Week because it addresses the novel legal question: Does the presence of a bong and Baggies constitute probable cause for a search for marijuana? Speeding and SeizingWhen Shawn Smith decided to do some urban drag racing with friends, he probably should have left his bong at home. For readers who may be unfamiliar with the household appliance known as the bong, it is a water pipe--used by some to smoke marijuana.

The speeding Mr. Smith was attempting to outduel a fellow motorist when police clocked him traveling 67 miles per hour in a 40 mile per hour zone. When police stopped the Smithmoblie, they noticed a bong and an open box of plastic sandwich bags in the car. The police testified that, based on their experience, a bong and Baggies usually meant one thing Yes, police thought they were dealing with that plague on humanity: marijuana.

Having spotting the offending bong and Baggies, law enforcement swung into action. Police ordered Mr. Smith from the car, and frisked him. They asked him if there were any marijuana in the car, and he said there was not. Smith admitted he had some herbal enjoyment in his pocket. Police seized it, arrested Mr. Smith, and impounded his speedy car. Shockingly, they found more marijuana. However, in a development that will be significant legally later in our story, police did not detect any marijuana smoke or residue in the bong.

Evidence Up in Smoke? Sure, police get to do an inventory when they seize a car. Smith for his weed, so they got to go through his car and inventory everything. However, when police misbehave, there is a judicial remedy known as suppression of the evidence. For those who never have time to watch Law and Order, that means the evidence is thrown out because the cops got it illegally.

In this case, because the police failed to give Mr. Smith his Miranda warnings before giving him the Spanish Inquisition, Mr. Smith moved to suppress evidence of the search. However, Massachusetts prosecutors argued the bong and Baggies sitting in the car in plain sight gave the police all the probable cause they needed to search the carMiranda or not.

In essence, the Commonwealth argued, it was the probable cause supplied by the bong and Baggiesnot the Mirandaless utterances of Mr. Smith that gave police the pot. Citing Massachusetts case law, the court held that bongs and Baggies--and nothing more--do not give the police probably case for a search. Dolby from , and Commonwealth v. Correia in It is true the facts in all three cases were somewhat similar: cops stop car, cops see bong, cops arrest driver.

However, Smith differed from Dolby and Correia in one, key respect. Unlike in Dolby and Correia, in Smith, there was neither marijuana smoke nor residue present in the bong. The Appeals Court said that distinction was critical. In Dolby and Correia, the evidence was not suppressed, but it was because there was residue in the bong--not because police spotted an innocent bong just hanging out, minding its own business, with no nefarious residue or smoke.

Baggies get the same constitutional protections. Citing its decision in Commonwealth v. Garcia, the court held, the observation of two lawful items--the bong and the box of sandwich bags--did not supply probably cause. Benign objects such as spoons, mirrors, and straws are often used in the narcotic trade. To allow police officers, experienced in narcotics investigations, to conduct a warrantless search whenever they observe one of the above items, and nothing more, would permit random searches, which are condemned by the Fourth Amendment and the Declaration of Rights," the court said.

So, Mr. Smith got off: the evidence was suppressed, and the charges were dropped. Manmade ChassisDenise Dalien decided she wanted to augment the chassis God gave her, so she consulted plastic surgeon Stanley Jackson of Puyallup, Wash.

Jackson performed breast augmentation on Ms. Dalien in , using saline implants. After a diet and exercise regimen caused her to lose weight, Ms. Dalien noticed some indentation and rippling on what was once her soft and supple upper left bosom. Jackson went in again, removed the saline implants, and replaced them with gel implants.

Turns out there was a problem. Dalien was not happy with her new gel bosoms, so under the surgical theory of more is more, Dr. Jackson performed additional revision procedures on Ms. Dalien during and Blinding BungeeJust before all this happened, and--importantly for our story--unbeknownst to Ms. Dalien, Dr. Jackson was having issues with a bungee cord. Jackson went into mortal combat with the killer cord in July The bungee cord won.

Jackson received surgery on his eye, and took over a month off from his practice. In July , Dr. Jackson reported additional changes in his vision. He retired in October after unsuccessful surgery. Citing her allegedly unsuccessful surgeries, Ms. Dalien sued the good doctor twice. In one suit, Ms. Dalien argued negligent medical malpractice in the botched boob job. In her second civil action, Ms.

Dalien argued, among other things, that Dr. Jackson violated the law by failing to disclose his eye injury. Cow Bone LawDr. Jackson argued that the nondisclosure of his eye condition did not occur in trade or commerce and that any alleged professional malpractice or negligence was exempt from the CPA.

Dalien countered that the nondisclosure of the eye condition was, in fact, done in trade or commerce because Dr. Jackson solicited and retained patients by failing to disclose this condition. In siding with Dr. Dental, Inc. Michel needed a bone graft. When completing her pre-procedure paperwork, Ms. Michel was given the choice of human bone, cow bone, or synthetic bone for her graft. Stating she could not fathom the thought of having animal parts in her body, Ms.

Michel declined the opportunity to get authentic cow bone. Well, unfortunately for Ms. Michel, supplies were running low in the dental office that day. When Dr. Mosquera-Lacy ran out of human bone, she finished the job with cow bone. Although the dentist claimed she merely finished up with cow bone--and that cow constituted no more than 10 percent of the graft--Ms.

Michel said she now had a McImplant with the doctor having implanted a cow bone in her mouth. Whatever damages or urges to graze on her front lawn Ms. It does not relate to billing or obtaining and retaining patients. It simply relates to Dr. There is no evidence that cow bone was used to increase profits or the number of patients. When the supply of human bone ran out during the procedure, Dr.

Mosquera-Lacy used her judgment and skills as a periodontist to finish the procedure. This is not actionable under the CPA," the court said. Jackson that Dr. Dalien has presented no evidence that Dr. Jackson represented that he had better vision than his competitors or somehow relied on his vision to promote his business," Judge Russell Hartman wrote for the court. Referencing her other suit, the court said, "To the extent that Dr.

Murrow, William F. Buckley Jr. They argue their show is real journalism, and--in an attempt to avoid producing evidence in a California court proceeding--they say their photographers are journalists. In recognition of this creative legal argument, their case gets to be our Case of the Week. What is a Journalist?

The proliferation of new media sources has created a novel question: Just what is a journalist? Must one possess government-issued press credentials, sending shivers down the spines of First Amendment advocates? How about a requirement that you earn your living from journalism? Perhaps there should be a requirement that at least your Aunt Betsy actually read what you write? This question has taken on real legal significance as the U.

These laws attempt to protect reporters and their confidential sources by shielding confidential information from disclosure to courts and third parties. Although there has been substantial progress, a federal shield law has not yet passed.

However, 40 states and the District of Columbia have shield laws, with many states enacting them after what some argued were Bush administration abuses, prosecutorial attacks on the press, and the prosecution of New York Times reporter Judith Miller.

Old Media world? Many hipsters sipping lattes at Starbucks like to bash so-called Old Media. Silly, Rupert, New Media is for hip kids. But, the beautiful world of blogging Brown alumni opining on global warming and Maya Angelous contributions to literature while their conservative brethren blog on banks and hedge funds may be in for a shock to its modern sensibilities. There may be unwanted guests at this post-modern, online clambake, and it may be a sign of things to come.

In Bait Car, the producers work with local police to place an unlocked car with keys in the ignition out on the street. Its the bait for would-be car thieves. Get it, bait, car? Many unsuspecting citizens, including Joseph Bullard, took the bait. Or did he? In the case of People v. Bullard argued that he was merely being a good citizen, moving the Bait Car out of its illegal parking spot. He also argued selective prosecution.

Bullard, a gentleman who enjoys cross-dressing, argued it was no coincidence that the unholy trinity of producers, police, and prosecutors arranged for the Bait Car to be placed outside Divas, a well-known, somewhat risque San Francisco transgendered club. Police countered that they just picked an area known for car theft.

To prove Mr. Not so fast, said KKI. Funny thing. You may have laughed at Mr. Future of Journalism? Dalglish added. People v. The case also illustrates that the cozy little blogging world at Starbucks and beyond is also in the midst of a culture shift. Yes, the Fourth Estate is becoming a very big tent in every respect imaginable Combine the two - the theory went - and you would have what one of those MBA-types might call, synergy.

Activision and Ms. Stefani thought so They also made some money off a game series based on the adventures of skateboarder Tony Hawk. Band Hero was a similar, spin-off production. In their Agreement, Activision and No Doubt agreed Activision would license only a limited number of No Doubt songs for use in the game. However, that provision failed to consider another potential use of Band Hero.

When players reached a certain level of the game, Band Hero allowed them to unlock their avatars, changing their song selection and personal characteristics. For instance, Activision licensed only a few No Doubt songs, but if Little Johnny were proficient enough in Band Hero to get his avatar -- say, perhaps, a lasciviously alluring Ms. Stefani -- to reach Level Nine of Band Hero, he could unlock her and free her from the bondage of her current condition, in every way, including gender. No Doubt was most displeased to discover that, once your Gwen Stafani avatar were unlocked, not only could Avatar Gwen be singing Janet Jackson, she could also be singing Tito Jackson.

Not surprisingly, Ms. Stefani and her bandmates were not excited about the prospect of having their voices replaced with the manly sounds of Boy George. Ska vs. In No Doubt v. Activision Publg, Inc. The right of publicity gives an individual control over the commercial use of her name or likeness. About half the states have a statutory right of publicity and others protect the right of publicity as part of their right of privacy laws.

There has been a movement to extend the right of publicity beyond death. Not surprisingly, this movement is led by the heirs of some very famous dead people, including the heirs of Marilyn Monroe. California is one of those states with a codified right to publicity, contained in section of the California Civil Code. Gary Saderup, Inc. The appellate court sided with No Doubt and the trial court. The court ruled that a transgendered avatar did not qualify as a transformative use.

Sega of Am. You might think this fight over the name, "Pint," was a beer dispute. Pint of Yellow LiquidThe urinal and its bathroom cousin, the toilet, use a lot of water. As people have become more concerned about the environment, manufactures have joined the party, developing so-called green products, and urinal makers are no exception.

After all, no self-respecting urinal manufacturer wants to be known as a truck stop eco-terrorist. Both Zurn and Sloan wanted to help save the planet by making eco-friendly urinals. Zurn developed a urinal Mother Nature would love and named it, The Pint. The U. Not to be outdone, the nature-loving folks at Sloan came out with their own environmentally sound urinal, the Sloan 1 Pint Urinal System. Not unlike a fraternity pledge spotting someone swiping his pint of Guinness from the bar, lawyers for Zurn swung into action.

Zurn demanded that Sloan stop marketing its allegedly infringing urinal with "pint" in its name. In an apparent attempt to maintain peace and harmony in the urinal world, Sloan changed the name of its urinal from the "Sloan 1 Pint Urinal System" to the "Sloan Pint Urinal System.

Simply deleting the numeral, "1," from the name wasnt enough. They sued. In its case, Zurco, Inc. Sloan Valve Co. Sloan argued that pint was merely an identification of a type of urinal -- one that uses one pint of water when flushed. Thus, Sloan argued, urinal purchasers would associate the term, pint, with the flush volume of the urinal, not the maker of the urinal, Zurn.

In attempting to decide the dispute between the fighting flushers, the federal court applied the so-called primary significance test, used in many cases, including A. Canfield Co. Under the primary significance test, the court determines whether the primary significance of a term in the minds of the consuming public is the product or the producer.

The court illustrated the difference by citing E. Browne Drug Co. Cococare Products, Inc. Zurn disputed the generic label by noting that, in the toilet and urinal industry, flush volumes are described -- not in pints -- but with the terms, gallons per flush GPF and liters per flush LPF. In fact, Zurn claimed the use of gallon and liter by those other wasteful water-hogs in the toilet and urinal industry was precisely why it chose the unique term, pint.

However, Sloan countered that pint had become an industry standard, noting that American Standard has used pint and 1 point since , Mansfield Plumbing Products has used 1-pint for its Brevity line of urinals, and Caroma USA had used one pint for its Cube Ultra line of urinals for two years. Unfortunately for Sloan, the court noted that none of those urinal craftsmen had used the term before Zurn introduced the Pint in In addition, Zurn argued it had been diligent in sending cease and desist letters to the allegedly infringing urinal producers, a requirement for protection under trademark law.

To Be ContinuedIn denying motions for summary judgment on most issues, the court held that there were genuine issues of material fact as to whether The Pint was generic. As a result, the case will move forward, and more evidence about urinals and what people call them can enter the hallowed halls of American jurisprudence.

Yes, this week, we go to Massachusetts to bring you the law of chicken head damages. Because she was a full-time employee, she asked her boss, Victor Grillo Jr. Grillo was very happy to give Ms. Cappello the medical coverage she desired, but it seems there was a catch. Grillo said Ms. Cappello could have the medical insurance only if she wore a chicken head mask. Grillo wrote in an e-mail. Even with major medical and hospitalization coverage for her young daughter on the line, Ms.

Cappello declined to don the chicken head, which was part of a complete chicken costume kept in the office. You see, according to court papers, the employees at Cricket Productions considered themselves a fun-loving group that often socialized after hours. Cappello did. Saying she became too depressed to work as a result of the alleged harassment, Ms.

Cappello sought medical attention and claimed she was unable to work. Of course, this is the Case of the Week, so you know what happens next. Colonel Sanders or Jack Daniels? Cappello decided to file a claim for her alleged injuries, and an administrative legal action ensued.

Cricket carried no workers compensation coverage, but an administrative law judge held that, because Cricket was doing the business of DTR Advertising, Inc. Based on the opinion of her psychiatrist, Mark Cutler, Ms. Cappello argued Mr. The administrative law judge agreed and held for Ms.

Cappello, but The Hartford appealed, arguing the chicken head incident was not the predominant contributing cause of Ms. Hartford argued there could be other potential causes for the alleged injuries, and -- on appeal to the Commonwealth of Massachusetts Department of Industrial Accidents in the case of Cappello v. DTR Advertising, Inc. Cappello had received previous psychiatric treatment for issues related to a divorce and an alcohol-dependent husband.

It was all about that chicken head. Foul fowl? Because of her preoccupation with the perceived harassment at work and her disbelief that she was being asked to do what her employer asked her to do, which she perceived as very humiliating, she has been unable to return to any work for which she is reasonably trained by virtue of her education and job experience, Ms.

In a legal ruling sure to shock the San Diego Chicken, Mardi Gras revelers, and others who actually enjoy wearing chicken head masks, the judges sided with Ms. Cappellos psychiatric issues, the judges ruled Ms. Cappello had shown those problems were not the cause of her present injuries. Although the judges conceded she had past psychiatric problems, they noted she had not experienced her present symptoms until the chicken head incident.

The judges held that Dr. In addition, citing Bouras v. The Massachusetts case of the chicken head was remanded to the lower judge on additional claims Ms. Cappello made, but she was victorious on this day For their efforts on behalf of their client and for furthering the jurisprudence of chicken heads in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, the judges awarded Ms.

A episode of Mr. When the infuriated supposed subject came back for more, it ended up in American court, raising the question: could a reasonable viewer take the show seriously, resulting in a judgment for defamation? The friends lost touch over the years, but Ms. Doe followed Mr. Cohen never forgot Ms. On the Aug. Cohen interviewed the American author, Gore Vidal. Among the topics of conversation were the United States Constitution and the practice of amending it.

Cohen asked Mr. Vidal if it were not sometimes better to get rid of something rather than amending it. As an example, Mr. Cohen referred to Ms. Using her real name and referring to her with a term also used to describe a female dog, he said Ms. Doe was always trying to amend herself by such means as highlighting her hair, adorning herself with tattoos, and shaving her private regions. Cohen said Ms. Doe denied her relationship with Mr.

Cohen was ever romantic or sexual in nature. Given what Mr. Cohen claimed were Ms. Cohen went on to suggest that Mr. Vidal was an internationally famous hairstylist, that euthanasia was a means of exterminating the elderly in Asia, and that Denzel Washington resided at Mount Vernon.

Doe was not amused. After complaints from Ms. Doe, HBO settled with her in for 40, Categories Images. Embed Any Document. Alexa Certified Site Metrics. Acquia Cloud Site Factory. HulkApps Form Builder. Snap Pixel. Custom Twitter Feeds Tweets Widget.

Apple iPhone. Stackable — Page Builder Gutenberg Blocks. Pure Chat. Camping cabin. Pediatric dentist. Video editing service. School for the deaf. Dried flower shop. Boat club. Jain temple. Record company.

Homekill service. Machine shop. Archery range. Record store. Add new website.

Присоединяюсь всему кристи томск стоматология Так бывает