Topic: declining to follow" nps as "inconsistent with the decision… · Go Syfert
← All topics

Topic #21214

7 canonical passages across 7 cases, quoted by 20 opinions in total. These passages cluster together because the same opinions keep quoting them side by side: they state parts of one doctrine. The anchor passage is from Hill v. StubHub, Inc..

#Case FlagCanonical passage Citers
1 Hill v. StubHub, Inc. Anchor
ncctapp · 2012
green “declining to follow" nps as "inconsistent with the decisions concluding that knowledge of unlawful content does not strip a website of section 230 immunity” 3
2 First Global Communications, Inc. v. Bond
wawd · 2006
green “knowledge about the illicit ads in its 'escorts' section shows that it is well aware that the services offered on its website are (1) illegal and (2) not the same as any of the lawful services regulated by state or municipal law.” 3
3 Anthony v. Yahoo! Inc.
cand · 2006
green “for the purpose of luring them into renewing their subscriptions.” 3
4 Milgram v. ORBITZ WORLDWIDE, INC.
njsuperctappdiv · 2010
green “inconsistent with the decisions concluding that knowledge of unlawful content does not strip a website of section 230 immunity” 3
5 City of Chicago v. Stubhub!, Inc.
ca7 · 2010
green “does not depend on who 'publishes' any information or is a 'speaker” 3
6 Backpage.com, LLC v. McKenna
wawd · 2012
green “unlikely that defendants would be able to prove that all online advertisements for escort services are ads for prostitution.” 3
7 State v. Fairfax
wash · 2013
green “beyond a reasonable doubt that no facts exist that would justify recovery” 2

A red or yellow flag on a member means the underlying case has negative treatment: for those, check the case page before relying on the passage.

← Caselaw search · Hot / Trending / Newly red · Brief Check