Reports of judicial decisions in the Constitutional court, of the state of South-Carolina; held at Charleston and Columbia, during the years 1812, 13, 14, 15, and 16. To which is added, two cases determined in the Court of equity in the year eighteen hundred & twenty-two.

Mode of access: Internet.

The celebrated trial, Madeline Pollard vs. Breckinridge, the most noted breach of promise suit in the history of court records.

Trial of William Campbell Preston who was being sued by Miss Madeline Pollard for $50,000 in a breach of promise suit. Accused of promising to marry Miss Pollard and fathering a child and then failing to fulfill his promise. He was found guilty.

Customs bulletin and decisions : regulations, rulings, decisions, and notices concerning customs and related matters of the United States Court of Customs and Patent Appeals and the United States Customs Court.

Latest issue consulted: Vol. 38, no. 1 (Dec. 31, 2003).

Supplemental report of the Special Prosecutor /

"September 10, 1982."

Reports of cases determined in the Constitutional Court of South Carolina.

"Appendix. Note A. On the subject of nudum pactum, in connexion with the Statute of frauds ... " v. 3, p. [569]-595.

Reports of cases determined in the Constitutional Court of South-Carolina /

Includes cases from 1823-1824.

Central reporter... : all cases determined in the courts of last resort.

"New York. Court of Appeals; New Jersey. Supreme Court. Court of Errors and Appeals, Court of Chancery and Prerogative Court; Pennsylvania. Supreme Court; Delaware. Superior Court, Court of Errors and Appeals and Court of Chancery; Maryland. Court of Appeals; District of Columbia. Supreme Court. From September, 1885."

Cases decided in United States Court of Customs and Patent Appeals : customs cases adjudged in the Court of Customs and Patent Appeals /

Reporters: 1966-67 - 1978-1979, Helen G. Nassif; 1979-1980, Ruth A. Hill; 1980-1981- Ruth A. Butler.

The valley of the dolls: Brand protection and artistic parody

In the case of Mattel Inc v Walking Mountain Productions, the toy doll manufacturer Mattel sought to prohibit a Utah photographer called Thomas Forsythe from producing and selling a series of 78 photographs entitled "Food Chain Barbie". The work had strong social and political overtones. The artist said that he chose to parody Barbie in his photographs because he wanted to challenge the beauty myth and the objectification of women. He observed: "Barbie is the most enduring of those products that feed on the insecurities of our beauty and perfection-obsessed consumer culture." The company Mattel argued that the photographs infringed its copyrights, trade marks, and trade dress. It was concerned that the artistic works would erode the brand of Barbie by wrongfully sexualising its blonde paragon of womanhood. However, Lew J of the Central District Court of California granted summary judgment for the photographer. The Court of Appeals upheld this verdict. Pregerson J held that the use of the manufacturer's copyrighted doll in parodic photographs constituted a fair use of copyright works. His Honour held that the use of manufacturer's "Barbie" mark and trade dress did not amount to trade mark infringement or dilution. This article provides a case commentary upon the Court of Appeals decision in Mattel Inc v Walking Mountain Productions, and its wider ramifications for the treatment of artistic parody under copyright law and trade mark law. It contends that the decision highlights the need for reform in Australian jurisprudence and legislation in respect of artistic parody.

Memorial of the inhabitants of Fairfield District, S. Carolina, praying a revision of the tariff, &c., December 14, 1827

This document contains a memorial, which was written by the citizens of Fairfield district of South Carolina, with a purpose of securing their constitutional right of expressing formal sentiments in regard to excluding tariff on woolen manufactures. It was presented to the president and members of the Senate, and to the speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Congress.

Remonstrance of the citizens of Beaufort District, S.C. against any further increase of the duties on imports, December 31, 1827

This document contains a remonstrance, which was written by the citizens of Beaufort district of South Carolina, in connection with tariff increases. It was presented to the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States.

Revised rules of the Supreme court of the United States : Adopted June 5, 1928. Effective July 1, 1928. Amended June 1, 1931, and May 31, 1932. (The Acts of February 13, 1925, c.229, 43 Stat. 936, January 31, 1928, c. 14, 45 Stat. 54, and April 26, 1928, c. 440, 45 Stat. 466, are printed in an appendix.).

Act of February 13, 1925: An act to amend the Judicial code, and to further define the jurisdiction of the Circuit courts of appeals and of the Supreme court, and for other purposes; Act of January 31, 1928: An act in reference to writs of error; Act of April 26, 1928: An act to amend section 2 of an act entitled "An act in reference to writs of error" (12 pages at end) Eighty pages: "Amendments effective Sept. 1, 1932" inserted. (c.1).

Report of cases argued and determined in the Supreme Court of the State of Arizona.

Publisher and place of publication vary.

Ohio appellate and circuit court reports. cases adjudged in the courts of appeal and circuit courts of Ohio.

Mode of access: Internet.

Acts of the General Assembly of Virginia, passed in 1852, in the seventy-sixth year of the Commonwealth.

General acts.--Acts of a private or local nature.--Resolutions.--Virginia bill of rights.--Constitution of Virginia.--Schedule [for putting the constitution into use]--Table showing the times for the commencement of the regular terms of each circuit, county and corporation court.--Table showing the terms of the district courts and places for holding the same.--Separate election precincts.--A list of Commissioners [of Deeds] in other states and in the District of Columbia, appointed by the executive of Virginia, and appearing to be in office on the 10th day of February 1852, with the residence and date of appointment of each Commissioner.