§Why CasetextPricing

Karen Gravano, Appellant,v.Take-Two Interactive Software, Inc. et al., Respondents.

Brief

47 Cited authorities

  1. R.A.V. v. St. Paul

    505 U.S. 377 (1992)   Cited 1,628 times   8 Legal Analyses
    Holding the government may not "license one side of a debate to fight freestyle, while requiring the other to follow Marquis of Queensberry rules"

  2. Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Assn.

    564 U.S. 786 (2011)   Cited 496 times   9 Legal Analyses
    Holding that even if violent video games cause aggression, a state could not prohibit their sale to children

  3. Harte-Hanks Communications v. Connaughton

    491 U.S. 657 (1989)   Cited 917 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the standard for "reckless disregard" for the truth in a defamation action by a public figure "is a subjective one," requiring that "the defendant in fact entertained serious doubts as to the truth of his publication," or that "the defendant actually had a high degree of awareness of . . . probable falsity"

  4. Matal v. Tam

    137 S. Ct. 1744 (2017)   Cited 315 times   78 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the Lanham Act's prohibition on disparaging trademarks violates the First Amendment

  5. Sable Communications of California, Inc. v. Federal Communications Commission

    492 U.S. 115 (1989)   Cited 467 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Holding that indecency regulation of telephone messages was content-based restriction subject to strict scrutiny

  6. Howell v. New York Post Co.

    81 N.Y.2d 115 (N.Y. 1993)   Cited 1,445 times
    Holding that the elements of intentional infliction of emotional distress are: " extreme and outrageous conduct; intent to cause, or disregard of a substantial probability of causing, severe emotional distress; a causal connection between the conduct and injury; and severe emotional distress."

  7. Bartnicki v. Vopper

    532 U.S. 514 (2001)   Cited 288 times   6 Legal Analyses
    Holding unconstitutional the prohibition on disclosure of illegally intercepted conversation even though the initial step in the disclosure process, the interception, was illegal and harmful to those whose privacy was invaded

  8. Winters v. New York

    333 U.S. 507 (1948)   Cited 886 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that where a statute imposes criminal penalties, the standard of certainty involved in vagueness review is higher

  9. Joseph Burstyn, Inc. v. Wilson

    343 U.S. 495 (1952)   Cited 630 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that movies are a protected form of speech

  10. Hilton v. Hallmark Cards

    580 F.3d 874 (9th Cir. 2009)   Cited 236 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding that pendent jurisdiction is unavailable over a motion to dismiss under Federal Rule 12(b) in an appeal from a denial of a motion to strike under an anti-SLAPP statute

  11. Section 50 - Right of privacy

    N.Y. Civ. Rights Law § 50   Cited 529 times   9 Legal Analyses

    A person, firm or corporation that uses for advertising purposes, or for the purposes of trade, the name, portrait , picture, likeness, or voice of any living person without having first obtained the written consent of such person, or if a minor of such minor's parent or guardian, is guilty of a misdemeanor. N.Y. Civ. Rights Law § 50 Amended by New York Laws 2024, ch. 58,Sec. MM-A-1, eff. 4/20/2024.