Ben Birchall - WPA Pool / Getty ImagesPreviously unpublished sections of a 2018 letter that Meghan Markle wrote to her father warned him that “day after day” of “reading the tabloids” had warped his mind and that what started as fascination grew into “paranoia (and then rage) of how you were being portrayed.”Meghan won a dramatic victory Thursday in her privacy and copyright infringement case against Associated Newspapers, the publishers of the Daily Mail newspapers, when a judge said there was no doubt that her privacy had been invaded by the Mail on Sunday when it published 585 words out of a 1,250-word private letter which she wrote to her father in the aftermath of her wedding.Meghan Markle Loses Opening Skirmish of Courtroom Battle With the Mail on SundayJudge Warby handed down what is termed a “summary judgment” in Meghan’s favor that essentially brings the most contentious aspects of the trial to a close. He ruled th
The Duchess of Sussex has claimed a victory over "moral exploitation" after winning her High Court privacy case against the Mail on Sunday. As a judge on Thursday ruled that the publication of extracts of a private letter she sent to her father was "manifestly excessive” and unlawful, she declared: “We have all won.” The Duchess hailed a “comprehensive" victory on both privacy and copyright, saying: “We all lose when misinformation sells more than truth, when moral exploitation sells more than decency, and when companies create their business model to profit from people’s pain.” The Duchess sued Associated Newspapers for breach of privacy and copyright relating to the publication of five articles – two on MailOnline and three in the Mail on Sunday – in February 2019. The strategy, deemed risky by many, was vindicated as she successfully applied for a summary judgment, a legal step that will now see the c
Court Rules E911 Didn’t Have Authority To Enter Into Agreement
Court case between Mahaska County Board of Supervisors and Mahaska County E911 Service Board and Mahaska County Emergency Management.
Mahaska County District Court Judge Crystal Cronk made a ruling in regard to the ongoing battle between the Mahaska County Board of Supervisors and the E911 Service Board and Mahaska County Emergency Management.
At the center of the argument is the E911 Service Board’s ability to enter into 28E agreements.
Cronk wrote, “The Court’s analysis begins with the issue of whether an entity, created by a 28E agreement, may then enter into 28E agreement. The parties agree that the matter should be heard by the Court, as there are no material facts in dispute. The Court, finding the issue is one solely of law, concurs that summary judgment is proper.”
WHAT MATTERS
The industry practice is to set the Payment Rating to a code of 0 if the account was current on the closing date or to a code of 1-6 reflecting that the account was past due when it was paid off. This forms the basis of recent claims under FCRA brought by plaintiffs who claim that this standard method of reporting is inaccurate.
Metro 2 is the standard system used by furnishers of credit information for reporting consumers’ account information to credit reporting agencies. This system requires the input of several different codes, including an Account Status code, a Payment Rating code, and various others indicating the current balance, payment amounts, and amount past due. When an account is closed or paid off, the codes are set to reflect the outstanding balance and past due amount as zero, and the Account Status code is set to 13, reflecting that the account was paid or closed with a zero balance. Additionally, pursuant to the guidelines in the Credit Reporting Re
The nature and background of the relationship of the parties,
The balance of harms between the parties,
The likelihood of success on the merits,
Public policy,
Administrative burdens in the supervision and enforcement of the injunction.
The union stated all five of these factors weigh in favor of injunction. The city stated the union is not entitled to the remedy of injunction relief stating they failed to show the former union members “cannot be made whole through an award of monetary damages.”
The court looked at each of the five factors, to come up with the order to deny the request for injunctive relief.