Follow by Email

Tuesday, April 22, 2014

Gay Rights/ Affirmative Action/ Earth Day



Lawrence v. Texas- transcript of oral argument

Same-Sex Marriage Laws
Marriage laws vary from state to state. The only states and areas in the U.S. that perform marriages between same-sex couples are…”

Missoulian: High court upholds Mich affirmative action ban
Schuette v. BAMN
“Michigan voters adopted Proposal 2, now Art. I, §26, of the State Constitution, which, as relevant here, prohibits the use of race-based preferences as part of the admissions process for state universities. In consolidated challenges, the District Court granted summary judgment to Michigan, thus upholding Proposal 2, but the Sixth Circuit reversed, concluding that the proposal violated the principles of Washington v. Seattle School Dist. No. 1, 458 U. S. 457.”





Earth Day Resources
 

Monday, April 21, 2014

Exxon and MTBE/ POM Wonderful v. Coca-Cola



Mythyl Tertiary Butyl Ether (MTBE) in Drinking Water
“It is possible your water would taste and/or smell like turpentine if MTBE is present at levels around or above 20-40 ppb (some people may detect it at even lower levels). Though you cannot currently purchase a home testing kit, you can determine if your water contains MTBE the following ways. If your drinking water is supplied by a public water system, you can contact the system directly and ask whether they monitor for MTBE and what levels, if any, have been detected. In 2001, most public water systems will be required to monitor for MTBE. If you have a private well, you may want to have your well water tested. Your local health department may be able to tell you if MTBE has been found in water in your area. If you want to get your water tested, call the Safe Drinking Water Hotline (800-426-4791) or go to http://www.epa.gov/safewater/faq/sco.html to get the phone number for the office in your
state that certifies drinking water laboratories.”



Whether and to what extent the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, 21 U.S.C. 301 et seq., and regulations promulgated under that Act, preclude a food manufacturer from challenging the label of its competitor’s product under Section 43(a) of the Trademark (Lanham) Act of 1946, 15 U.S.C. 1125(a), which provides a cause of action against anyone who, interalia, “uses in commerce any word, term, name, symbol, or device, or any combination thereof * * * which * * * misrepresents the nature, characteristics, [or] qualities * * * of his* * * goods.” 15 U.S.C. 1125(a)(1) and (B).”