Opinions of the Supreme Court and Court of Appeals of South Carolina advance sheet no. 44

The Clerk of Court’s Office publishes the South Carolina Advance Sheets that contain the published opinions and orders of the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeals, along with notices, rule changes and other documents of general interest

Opinions of the Supreme Court and Court of Appeals of South Carolina advance sheet no. 45

The Clerk of Court’s Office publishes the South Carolina Advance Sheets that contain the published opinions and orders of the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeals, along with notices, rule changes and other documents of general interest

Case report.

Description based on: 1991; title from cover.

Docket /

Description based on: May term 2000.

Final report /

"December 1993"

Final report / Blue Ribbon Committee to Study the Functions and Operation of the Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission.

Cover title.

Judicial officers ... /

A directory of judicial officers for the Illinois Supreme Court, Appellate Court and Circuit Court.

North eastern reporter.

Includes the decisions of the Supreme Courts of Massachusetts, Ohio, Indiana, and Illinois, and Court of Appeals of New York; May/July 1891-Mar./Apr. 1936, Appellate Court of Indiana; Dec. 1926/Feb. 1927-Mar./Apr. 1936, Courts of Appeals of Ohio.

Annual report of the Illinois Courts.

Mode of access: Internet.

Annual report of the Illinois Courts.

Title from cover.

High Court decision on duty owed by licensee to patron

In a previous column of Queensland Lawyer,1 the case of Scott v CAL No 14 Pty Ltd (No 2) (2009) 256 ALR 512 was discussed. Special leave to appeal against the decision of the Full Court of the Supreme Court of Tasmania was granted and on 10 November 2009 the High Court handed down its decision.

Physicality in the Information Age : a normative perspective on the patent eligibility of non-physical methods

There has been much conjecture of late as to whether the patentable subject matter standard contains a physicality requirement. The issue came to a head when the Federal Circuit introduced the machine-or-transformation test in In re Bilski and declared it to be the sole test for determining subject matter eligibility. Many commentators criticized the test, arguing that it is inconsistent with Supreme Court precedent and the need for the patent system to respond appropriately to all new and useful innovation in whatever form it arises. Those criticisms were vindicated when, on appeal, the Supreme Court in Bilski v. Kappos dispensed with any suggestion that the patentable subject matter test involves a physicality requirement. In this article, the issue is addressed from a normative perspective: it asks whether the patentable subject matter test should contain a physicality requirement. The conclusion reached is that it should not, because such a limitation is not an appropriate means of encouraging much of the valuable innovation we are likely to witness during the Information Age. It is contended that it is not only traditionally-recognized mechanical, chemical and industrial manufacturing processes that are patent eligible, but that patent eligibility extends to include non-machine implemented and non-physical methods that do not have any connection with a physical device and do not cause a physical transformation of matter. Concerns raised that there is a trend of overreaching commoditization or propertization, where the boundaries of patent law have been expanded too far, are unfounded since the strictures of novelty, nonobviousness and sufficiency of description will exclude undeserving subject matter from patentability. The argument made is that introducing a physicality requirement will have unintended adverse effects in various fields of technology, particularly those emerging technologies that are likely to have a profound social effect in the future.

Court finds negligent dental treatment not an intentional act intended to cause harm : Dean v Phung

NSW Supreme Court decision - claim resulting from alleged damaging dental treatment of healthy teeth - failure of plaintiff to prove dishonest and fraudulent behaviour - assessment of damages.

Australian court holds Google is responsible for linking to defamatory website

The South Australian Supreme Court this week found that Google is legally responsible when its search results link to defamatory content on the web. In this long-running case, Dr Janice Duffy has been trying for more than six years to clear her name and remove links to defamatory material when people search for her using Google. The main culprit is the US based website Ripoff Reports, where people have posted negative reviews of Dr Duffy. Under United States law, defamation is very hard to prove, and US websites are not liable for comments made by their users. Since it was not possible to get harmful or abusive comments removed from the source, Dr Duffy instead asked Google to remove the links from its search results. Google removed some of these links, but only from its Australian domain (google.com.au), and it left many of them active. This latest court decision is a big win for Dr Duffy. The court found that once Google was alerted to the defamatory material, it was then under an obligation to act to censor its search results and prevent further harm to Dr Duffy’s reputation.

Lawyers linked to litigation funding face court censure: Bolitho v Banksia Securities Limited (No.4) [2014] VSC 582

In Bolitho v Banksia Securities Limited (No 4) [2014] VSC 582 the Supreme Court of Victoria concluded that the proper administration of justice, including the appearance of justice, required that the lawyers representing the plaintiff in the group proceeding should be restrained from continuing to act for the plaintiff. This Victorian case illustrates how courts are likely to respond when lawyers attempt to circumvent the prohibition on contingency fees through litigation funding in which they have a financial interest.