The IT Law Wiki
m
Tag: sourceedit
 
(3 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
  +
== Citation ==
'''Citation:''' Falwell v. Cohn, 2003 WL 751130 (W.D. Va. Mar. 4, 2003).
 
   
 
'''Falwell v. Cohn,''' 2003 WL 751130 (W.D. Va. Mar. 4, 2003).
   
  +
== Factual Background ==
Cohn owns a serious of [[domain name]]s including jerryfalwell.com. Falwell sued. The court held that it did not have [[personal jurisdiction]] over Cohn, who lives and works in the western United States and maintained the [[website]] outside Virginia.
 
   
  +
Cohn owns a serious of [[domain name]]s including jerryfalwell.com. Falwell sued.
The court relied on the decision in ''[[Young v. New Haven Advocate]],'' 315 F.3d 256 (4th Cir. 2002), which addressed the issue of [[personal jurisdiction]] in relation to the [[Internet]]. In ''Young,'' the Fourth Circuit held that Virginia did not have [[personal jurisdiction]] over two Connecticut newspapers based on certain allegedly [[slanderous]] material found on their [[website]]s. The Fourth Circuit ruled that the [[website|sites]] did not specifically target Virginians and could not lead to an exercise of [[jurisdiction]].
 
  +
  +
== Trial Court Proceedings ==
  +
 
The court held that it did not have [[personal jurisdiction]] over Cohn, who lives and works in the western United States and maintained the [[website]] outside Virginia.
  +
 
The court relied on the decision in ''[[Young v. New Haven Advocate]],''<ref>315 F.3d 256 (4th Cir. 2002) ([http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=13105970060722066052&q=315+F.3d+256&hl=en&as_sdt=2002 full-text]).</ref> which addressed the issue of [[personal jurisdiction]] in relation to the [[Internet]]. In ''Young,'' the Fourth Circuit held that Virginia did not have [[personal jurisdiction]] over two Connecticut newspapers based on certain allegedly [[slanderous]] material found on their [[website]]s. The Fourth Circuit ruled that the [[website|sites]] did not specifically target Virginians and could not lead to an exercise of [[jurisdiction]].
   
 
The court in ''Cohn'' found that although Falwell and his university are in Virginia, Cohn did not manifest the requisite intent through his [[website]] to expressly target a Virginia audience. The court, therefore, refused to exercise [[jurisdiction]].
 
The court in ''Cohn'' found that although Falwell and his university are in Virginia, Cohn did not manifest the requisite intent through his [[website]] to expressly target a Virginia audience. The court, therefore, refused to exercise [[jurisdiction]].
   
  +
== References ==
  +
<references />
 
[[Category:Case]]
 
[[Category:Case]]
 
[[Category:Case-U.S.-Federal]]
 
[[Category:Case-U.S.-Federal]]
Line 13: Line 22:
 
[[Category:Jurisdiction]]
 
[[Category:Jurisdiction]]
 
[[Category:Domain name]]
 
[[Category:Domain name]]
  +
[[Category:2003]]

Latest revision as of 02:33, 16 March 2016

Citation[]

Falwell v. Cohn, 2003 WL 751130 (W.D. Va. Mar. 4, 2003).

Factual Background[]

Cohn owns a serious of domain names including jerryfalwell.com. Falwell sued.

Trial Court Proceedings[]

The court held that it did not have personal jurisdiction over Cohn, who lives and works in the western United States and maintained the website outside Virginia.

The court relied on the decision in Young v. New Haven Advocate,[1] which addressed the issue of personal jurisdiction in relation to the Internet. In Young, the Fourth Circuit held that Virginia did not have personal jurisdiction over two Connecticut newspapers based on certain allegedly slanderous material found on their websites. The Fourth Circuit ruled that the sites did not specifically target Virginians and could not lead to an exercise of jurisdiction.

The court in Cohn found that although Falwell and his university are in Virginia, Cohn did not manifest the requisite intent through his website to expressly target a Virginia audience. The court, therefore, refused to exercise jurisdiction.

References[]

  1. 315 F.3d 256 (4th Cir. 2002) (full-text).