• Owners of Who Dat?, Inc. sue the NFL and the New Orleans Saints for trademark infringement, seeking to protect the mark that "has become one of the most recognizable in all of America and quickly became well-known around the world."
Who Dat?, Inc. v. NFL Properties

• Army bomb disposal expert sues the makers of "The Hurt Locker" for plagiarizing his life story. The film is "nothing more than the exploitation of a real life honorable, courageous, and long serving member of our country’s armed forces, by greedy multi-billion dollar 'entertainment' corporations."
Sarver v. The Hurt Locker

• Former patient sues the Cincinnati hospital where he was sexually assaulted by a transgender nurse. The nurse's "employment while masquerading as a member of the female gender in a hospital environment involved an unreasonable risk of harm to others."
Evans v. University of Cincinnati

• Federal judge enjoins the City of Phoenix from enforcing a noise ordinance against "sound generated in the course of religious expression," finding the right of churches to ring bells outweighs "the City's interest in preserving the peace and tranquility of its neighborhoods."
St. Mark Roman Catholic Parish v. City of Phoenix

• 5th Circuit says a Texas city's junked vehicle ordinance applies to a cactus planter made out of wrecked Oldsmobile 88. "Irrespective of the intentions of its creators ... the car-planter is a utilitarian device, an advertisement, and ultimately a 'junked vehicle.'"
Kleinman v. City of San Marcos

• Oklahoma City bomber Terry Nichols notifies a federal judge that he has gone on hunger strike, saying he is "prepared to die if necessary because he is done allowing his body to be defiled by [ ] refined and dead foods."
Nichols v. Federal Bureau of Prisons

• Texas judge finds the makers of a film about Rin Tin Tin did not infringe on the trademarks of a breeder of German Shepherds. "Defendants['] title 'Finding Rin Tin Tin: The Adventure Continues" is a fair use of the term 'Rin Tin Tin.'"
Rin Tin Tin, Inc. v. First Look Studios

• Illinois appeals court says the contact sports exception to negligence liability does not apply to the case of an athletic trainer who was struck in the eye by a hockey puck while refilling water bottles. Michael Weisberg "suffered injuries as a result of alleged conduct that was not inherent to the sport of hockey."
Weisberg v. Chicago Steel

• Site Map