Eugene Volokh
35 article(s) here · 0 carrying a prediction
🔮 [Nor do they] offer … facts that would suggest inevitable or likely exposure to the curriculum (or its harmful effects)….
🔮 The court concluded that "The Big Board's refusal to comply with the orders was not expressive conduct protected by the First Amendment," so not renewing his license based solely on such refusal would have been constitutional:
🔮 Lambert … falsely stated that the Plaintiffs had conflicts of interest with her clients and/or her firm, that she would sue the Plaintiffs if they were to be engaged in these relationships, and implicitly that she would take legal action against the relationships themselves if they were to hire Plaintiffs.
🔮 The court concluded that, even "assuming arguendo that there's a fair chance that the press defendants have violated the federal and state trade secrets provisions," the First Amendment would preclude the TRO:
🔮 Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
From the docket this morning; for more on the case, see here and here (the latter item notes the sealing, and expresses the now-realized hope that "the motion will be unsealed at some point soon"):
Via email, Plaintiff has informed the Court that it will not be pursuing preliminary injunctive relief….
🔮 Perhaps most analogously to alienation of affections, if Alan breaches his contract with Betty, and Cathy encouraged him to breach it, she will in many situations be liable for intentional interference with contract.
🔮 In a phone call on March 2, Gelb told Netrebko to issue a statement specifically denouncing Putin, or she would be fired.
🔮 A malicious act "include[s] any intentional conduct that would probably affect the marital relationship.
🔮 If you have followed the factual allegations in the case, please post a comment and indicate how you would have voted if you were a juror, based on your knowledge (even if limited) of the factual allegations, and why you would have so voted.
🔮 As part of this mea culpa, Ms. Hall assured the court that she had taken the remedial measure of verifying that the remaining citations in the brief were legitimate authority and pledged that, going forward (presumably in her representation of other clients), she would not rely on any AI tool "for legal research without confirming each authority" or file anything that includes citations she has not independently verified.
More on this subject from Eugene Volokh