The IT Law Wiki
Edit Page

Warning: You are not logged in. Your IP address will be publicly visible if you make any edits. If you log in or create an account, your edits will be attributed to your username, along with other benefits.

The edit can be undone. Please check the comparison below to verify that this is what you want to do, and then save the changes below to finish undoing the edit.

Latest revision Your text
Line 11: Line 11:
 
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 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.
   
βˆ’
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 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]].

Please note that all contributions to the The IT Law Wiki are considered to be released under the CC-BY-SA

Cancel Editing help (opens in new window)