Source: https://www.bgdlegal.com/blog/2009/06
Timestamp: 2019-04-25 20:34:45+00:00

Document:
In Ward v. State, the Indiana Supreme Court granted rehearing of its April 7, 2009 decision (see our summary here) affirming Roy Lee Ward’s death sentence for the limited purpose of addressing – and rejecting – a claim that was not expressly addressed in its earlier opinion.
In Camm v. State, the Indiana Supreme Court reversed David R. Camm’s three convictions and sentence of life imprisonment without parole for allegedly murdering his wife and two children. The Court remanded his case for a new trial.
The Indiana Supreme Court will hear one argument this week. At 9 a.m. on Thursday, July 2, the Court will hear Matter of N.E.
In Northern Indiana Public Service Co. v. United States Steel Corporation, the Indiana Supreme Court clarified the standard of review that should apply to Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission (“IURC”) interpretations of a settlement contract falling within the IURC’s regulatory authority.
The Indiana Supreme Court will hear three arguments on Thursday, June 25.
In Bailey v. State, the Indiana Supreme Court held that evidence at trial was sufficient to support the criminal convictions of a high school student on counts of battery and disorderly conduct. The Court also examined what behavior constitutes disorderly conduct under Indiana law.
On Wednesday, the Indiana Supreme Court handed down two opinions. Henri v. Curto addressed appellate issue preservation under Trial Rules 50 and 59. Indiana Department of Revenue v. Kitchin Hospitality addressed whether, before 2007, hotels were entitled to tax exemptions for their utility purchases.
In addition to Burke v. Bennett (see our summary here), which settled the outcome of the 2007 Terre Haute mayoral election, the Indiana Supreme Court handed down six more opinions on Tuesday, June 16.
In Davidson v. State, the Indiana Court of Appeals addressed an issue of first impression in Indiana law, concluding that where there is an evident boundary between two areas in a dwelling, each area “is not only a part of the whole dwelling, but also a separate structure or enclosed space” for purposes of the crime of residential entry.
On Tuesday, June 16, the Indiana Supreme Court will hear argument in three cases.
In City of East Chicago v. East Chicago Second Century, Inc., the Indiana Supreme Court again revisited the gaming license requiring economic development payments in the City of East Chicago, this time addressing what governmental agency had the authority to amend the terms attached to the license.
Addressing an issue of first impression in Indiana law, the Indiana Court of Appeals held Thursday that “circumstances of animal cruelty may create exigent circumstances to permit a warrantless search of the curtilage,” and that the results of the curtilage search may provide probable cause for a further search of the property.
Facebook, Inc., owners of the popular social networking website Facebook, recently announced that users of the website will be allowed to create personalized URLs for their Facebook pages (i.e., facebook.com/your name). There is a significant risk that some users of Facebook will incorporate registered trademarks into their personalized URLs, such as facebook.com/greenebaum. A Facebook user may then post inaccurate, misleading or inappropriate material in connection with the trademark.
This week, in Lacava v. Lacava, the Indiana Court of Appeals addressed the application of statutes of limitation to repressed-memory molestation claims.
Under the 1976 Copyright Act as amended (title 17 of the United States Code), a work is protected by copyright from the time it is created in a fixed form. In other words, when a work is written down or otherwise set into tangible form, the copyright immediately becomes the property of the author who created it. Only the author or those deriving their rights from the author can rightfully claim copyright. Although the general rule is that the person who creates a work is the author of that work, there is an exception to that principle: the copyright law defines a category of works called “works made for hire.” If a work is “made for hire,” the employer or commissioning party, and not the employee or commissioned party, is considered the author. The employer may be a firm, an organization, or an individual.
Act TODAY to Protect Your Trademark from Facebook "Land Rush"
Earlier this week, social networking giant Facebook, Inc. announced that it will allow its users to create personalized web addresses (URLs) for their profile pages. This decision poses great risk to corporations, their brands, and their trademarks.
In a pair of opinions last week, the Indiana Supreme Court held that “under existing unambiguous law a license plate – be it temporary or permanent – must be mounted [outside the vehicle] and illuminated [and visible from a distance of 50 feet] as provided by” Indiana Code sections 9-18-2-26 and 9-19-6-4.
If the market for your product or technology is global, it’s likely that you will consider applying for patent protection in several countries. Multiple filings, however, can cost thousands of dollars; and what if the foreign market fails to develop? Obviously, it would be preferable to put your company’s capital where it counts most. By filing a single international patent application under the Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT), a U.S. applicant can postpone the need to file in most foreign countries for up to thirty (30) months. This may be time enough for corresponding foreign markets to take shape. This article summarizes the steps in an international PCT application, by which one may seek patent protection simultaneously in as many as 115 countries around the world through a single initial filing.
When one enters a search query into the search engine of one’s choice, a number of results populate the screen. This happens millions of times a day in this country. But what happens when the search results lead you to a website that is using or has posted your company’s copyrighted material, whether it be written content, photographs, artwork, or the like? Such materials are often in the form of digital files, which are readily copied and transferred across the Internet. Often, the owners of such infringing websites are seemingly unidentifiable, making any direct legal action impossible. As a copyright owner, what are your options to combat this growing trend of online renegades?

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.