§Why CasetextPricing

M.A. v. Village Voice Media Holdings,

REPLY to Response to Motion re MOTION to Dismiss Case Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12

25 Cited authorities

  1. Hibbs v. Winn

    542 U.S. 88 (2004)   Cited 570 times   7 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "[b]ecause [28 U.S.C.] § 2101(c)'s 90-day limit [for petition for certiorari] had not yet expired, the clock could still be reset"

  2. MedellÍn v. Texas

    552 U.S. 491 (2008)   Cited 488 times   6 Legal Analyses
    Holding that President George W. Bush's memorandum in response to an international court's decision was "not a rule of domestic law binding in state and federal courts"

  3. Hamdan v. Rumsfeld

    548 U.S. 557 (2006)   Cited 249 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding the military commission procedures established by an executive order invalid

  4. Doe v. Myspace

    528 F.3d 413 (5th Cir. 2008)   Cited 762 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Holding that CDA bars claims for negligence and gross negligence in not preventing a 13 year old girl from lying about her age to create a personal profile that led to contact by a sexual predator

  5. Johnson v. Arden

    614 F.3d 785 (8th Cir. 2010)   Cited 378 times
    Holding that Colorado defendant who posted an allegedly defamatory statement online about the Missouri plaintiff's business "does not create the type of substantial connection between [the defendant] and Missouri necessary to confer specific personal jurisdiction"

  6. Fair v. Roommates

    521 F.3d 1157 (9th Cir. 2008)   Cited 316 times   27 Legal Analyses
    Holding defendant liable for developing content by “not merely ... augmenting the content generally, but ... materially contributing to its alleged unlawfulness” when it required subscribers to provide information which enabled users of site to unlawfully discriminate in selecting a roommate

  7. Batzel v. Smith

    333 F.3d 1018 (9th Cir. 2003)   Cited 359 times   17 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the denial of an anti-SLAPP motion is appealable under § 1291

  8. Zeran v. America Online

    129 F.3d 327 (4th Cir. 1997)   Cited 330 times   19 Legal Analyses
    Holding CDA immunity applied even though “AOL unreasonably delayed in removing defamatory messages posted by an unidentified third party, refused to post retractions of those messages, and failed to screen for similar postings thereafter”

  9. Ben Ezra, Weinstein, & Co. v. America Online Inc.

    206 F.3d 980 (10th Cir. 2000)   Cited 269 times   6 Legal Analyses
    Holding that defendant was immune to the defamation claim when it made its own editorial decisions with respect to third-party information published on its website

  10. Barrett v. Rosenthal

    40 Cal.4th 33 (Cal. 2006)   Cited 164 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding that CDA immunity extended to individuals who republish via the Internet defamatory statements originally made by others in email and internet postings

  11. Section 1343 - Fraud by wire, radio, or television

    18 U.S.C. § 1343   Cited 11,950 times   170 Legal Analyses
    Barring fraudulent schemes "for obtaining money or property"

  12. Section 1030 - Fraud and related activity in connection with computers

    18 U.S.C. § 1030   Cited 3,230 times   408 Legal Analyses
    Holding cellular phones are protected

  13. Section 230 - Protection for private blocking and screening of offensive material

    47 U.S.C. § 230   Cited 1,018 times   167 Legal Analyses
    Limiting liability