Snow shoveling always has been a means for young people to learn how to run a business. They learn how to advertise, interact with customers, work for a competitive wage, and learn something about service to the community. All businesses are at the service of others; and, snow shoveling, like delivering newspapers, or running a lemonade stand, give young people a way of learning responsibility.

Governor Christie just signed into law (before a major snowstorm) making it legal for residents to offer snow shoveling services without first applying for a permit. Last year, Bound Brook, New Jersey police stopped two entrepreneurial teens for going door-to-door and offering to shovel snow for a small fee. The police told the boys they were not allowed to solicit businesses without a permit. In Bound Brook, the license costs $450. The case made national headlines.

Republican State Sen. Mike Doherty sponsored the “‘right-to-shovel’” bill, stating it “was incredible that some towns wanted teens to pay expensive licensing fees just to clear snow off driveways.”

“The bill removes only licensing requirements for snow shoveling services, and only applies to solicitations made within 24 hours before a predicted snow storm. Towns with laws prohibiting door-to-door solicitation will be able to enforce those laws in all other circumstances.”

Posted by Steven Otto.

The San Francisco rating company, Yelp, is not found liable for negative reviews posted on its site. This is because it relies on ratings posted by users, not the company itself. A federal appeals court on Monday, September 12, dismissed a libel lawsuit filed against Yelp by Douglas Kimzey, the owner of a Washington state locksmith company. The 9^th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that, under federal law, Yelp is not liable for content it gets from its users. The features of Yelp are based on users’ input and it is not content created by the company, whose site helps guide people to anything from restaurants to plumbers and much more.

The court said that Douglas Kimzey’s business received a negative review on Yelp in 2011. Kimzey claimed that the negative review was actually meant for another business, and claimed that Yelp transferred the review to his business on purpose in an attempt to extort him. He claims that Yelp was trying to force him into paying to advertise with Yelp. The appeals court said that his allegations were not substantial and that there were no facts at all supporting Yelp fabricating content under a third party’s identity. Circuit Judge M. Margaret McKeown, writing for a unanimous three-judge panel decision, said “We fail to see how Yelp’s rating system, which is based on rating inputs from third parties and which reduces this information into a single, aggregate metric, is anything other than user-generated data.”

The appeals court previously ruled under the 1996 Communications Decency Act that “websites that provide what are known as ‘neutral tools’ to post material online cannot be held liable for libelous material posted by third parties.” Kimzey’s claim that Yelp should be held liable for distributing reviews to search engines was dismissed by this act. The appeals court stated that distributing the content does not make Yelp the creator or developer of the content.

Aaron Schur, Yelp’s senior director of litigation, said the appeals court “rightly confirmed Yelp’s ability to provide a forum for millions of consumers to share their experiences with local businesses.” Kimzey said he lost 95% of his business after getting one star on Yelp and said, “If you have a one-star rating, people won’t go near it (the business). They don’t care if you’ve been in business for one week or 25 years.” Obviously upset over what had occurred to him and the ruling, Kimzey, serving as his own attorney, plans to appeal to a larger court panel.

Steven is an accounting major at the Feliciano School of Business, Montclair State University, Class of 2019.

Posted by Natalie Kenny.

Amazon just received a major success in a lawsuit against them. Amazon was being sued over a book sold on their website. This book was based on New England Patriots star, Rob Gronkowski. Greg McKenna, a middle-aged man, took up the pen-name Lacey Noonan and wrote a book called A Gronking to Remember. This book gained a lot of media attention and was even featured on the show Jimmy Kimmel Live. On the cover of the book, there is a photo of a couple. McKenna used this photo on the cover but did not legally obtain the rights to use the photo.

The couple shown in the photo sued Amazon for selling the book with the illegally obtained photo of the couple. The question of the lawsuit was whether or not third-parties like Amazon should be responsible for what their users distribute using their platform. After hearing the case, an Ohio district court judge said that Amazon is not responsible for what its users distribute using their website. The judge cited the Communications Decency Act, which states that “No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.” This rule goes the same for Amazon and Barnes & Noble when selling books.

I think that the decision made in this case to side with Amazon was the right decision to be made. Amazon and other book sellers should not have to check every single thing that is sold to make sure that there are not copyright issues. The person who should be getting sued in this particular case should have been Greg McKenna–the one who used the picture without permission. It was wrong of him to use this photo without permission but it should not be Amazon’s responsibility to make sure that whoever is selling products through their platform is doing everything they are supposed to be doing.

Natalie is a marketing major at the Stillman School of Business, Seton Hall University, Class of 2019.

The Supremacy Clause of Article VI of the United States Constitution states:

This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.

While federal law trumps state law, nothing under the Supremacy Clause compels a state court’s interpretation of a federal law to give way to a lower federal court. In Lockhart v. Fretwell, Justice Thomas stated in his concurrence that “a state trial court’s interpretation of federal law is no less authoritative than that of the federal court of appeals in whose circuit the trial court is located.” 506 U.S. 364, 375-76 (1993).  Justice Thomas gave the following example: “An Arkansas trial court is bound by this Court’s (and by the Arkansas Supreme Court’s and Arkansas Court of Appeals’) interpretation of federal law, but if it follows the Eighth Circuit’s interpretation of federal law, it does so only because it chooses to and not because it must.”

The Supreme Court is the final interpreter of federal law. When it rules, then the states are bound.

Under Article I, Section 8 of the United States Constitution, the Congress has the power to “declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water[.]”  The Founders wisely thought that the Legislature is in a better position than the President to carry out the will of the people.  Congressional debate can test the arguments for and against intervention in global problems.  Every two years members of the House are kept in check by the voters, who ought to dictate what American foreign policy should be.

James Madison, commonly referred to as “Father of the Constitution,” once said:

Of all the enemies to public liberty, war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded, because it comprises and develops the germ of every other.  War is the parent of armies; from these proceed debts and taxes; and armies, and debts, and taxes are the known instruments for bringing the many under the domination of the few.  In war, too, the discretionary power of the Executive is extended; its influence in dealing out offices, honors, and emoluments is multiplied; and all the means of seducing the minds are added to those of subduing the force of the people.  The same malignant aspect in republicanism may be traced in the inequality of fortunes and the opportunities of fraud growing out of a state of war, and in the degeneracy of manners and of morals engendered by both.  No nation could reserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare.

Under the War Powers Resolution, the President can deploy U.S. forces anywhere outside the U.S. for 180 days, provided Congress is informed in writing within 48 hours.  The executive does not need Congress to declare war for the 180 days, however, that time period cannot be extended without congressional authorization.  The President has the authority to introduce American forces into hostilities only when there is:

(1) a declaration of war

(2) specific statutory authorization, or

(3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces.

The Supreme Court has never reviewed the War Powers Resolution to see if it passes constitutional muster.  Although Congress will say that it has “the power to make all laws necessary and proper for carrying into execution, not only its own powers but also all other powers vested by the Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any department or officer . . . [,]” the Court, however, has ruled in other cases that one branch of government cannot give power away to another.

Posted by Peyton Adams.

Avery was wrongly convicted for strangling Maryetta Griffin.  According to sources, Avery did not admit to the crime, and if he did, it was a forced confession.  However, the jury did not believe him.

The prosecution was able to sway the jury, which caused Mr. Avery to go to jail for SIX years. His image was severely damaged; he lost touch with his children and grandchildren due to being wrongfully convicted.

New DNA evidence surfaced proving that Avery was not the murderer of Maryetta Griffin.  Instead, the DNA testing was linked to Walter Ellis, a serial killer.  Avery was unjustly incriminated by the Milwaukee Police and Avery’s accusations of him not confessing, or confessing unwillingly were proved correct.

The police in this case, therefore, destroyed a man’s life by making up incriminating statements.  Avery lost touch with loved ones; his image was attacked; and he was ONLY awarded $1M.

John Stainthorp with Peoples Law Office in Chicago said, “If you think about it, six years while you’re in prison, you can’t get up when you want, you can’t see the people you want, go to bed when you want, read what you want.”  His life was ruined due to the fact that the police did not do the correct investigation to make sure that they had accused the correct man.

Mr. Avery was released after six years, but his life will never be the same AGAIN!  The Milwaukee Police should be questioned for the accusations they made in court against the plaintiff.

Peyton is a marketing major with minors in business law and nonprofit studies at the Stillman School of Business, Seton Hall University, Class of 2019.

Posted by Deena Khalil.

There are two sides of every story. According to Kelly Wallace who works for CNN, “It’s a case of she said versus they said.”

Rachael Cunnings, a young girl from New Jersey, accused her parents of throwing her out of their house when she turned eighteen. They refused to pay for her private school tuition, and so she sued them for expected future expenses, such as transportation, bills, college tuition, and living expenses.   The teen’s parents argue “that she was not kicked out of the house. Instead, they say she left on her own back in October because she didn’t want to abide by their rules.” There were many claims against each side, such as Rachael’s parents not liking her boyfriend, missing curfews, getting suspended, and apparently the teen’s parents were abusive.

The judge in the New Jersey Superior Court denied Cunnings request for high school tuition and living expenses. “The judge sounded skeptical of some of the claims in the lawsuit, saying it could lead to teens ‘thumbing their noses’ at their parents, leaving home and then asking for financial support.” There was another hearing that took place the following month about other issues in the case including her college expenses. Before the hearing, Rachael dropped the case; she was accepted by Western New England University with a $56,000 scholarship. In the end, the teen did not end up empty handed.

Deena is a finance major at Montclair State University, Class of 2017.

Grand juries function to investigate criminal wrongdoing and screen out charges that do not warrant prosecution. Secrecy in the proceedings is paramount to carry out its duty. Therefore, litigants in a civil action cannot request that grand jury proceedings be disclosed, unless there must be a particularized need for the disclosure. That need must outweigh the public interest in its secrecy.

But why should these proceedings remain secret when court proceedings are generally conducted in public? The United States Supreme Court has said there are five reasons why grand jury proceedings should remain secret:

(1) To prevent the escape of those whose indictment may be contemplated; (2) to insure the utmost freedom to the grand jury in its deliberations, and to prevent persons subject to indictment or their friends from importuning the grand jurors; (3) to prevent subornation of perjury or tampering with the witnesses who may testify before grand jury and later appear at the trial of those indicted by it; (4) to encourage free and untrammeled disclosures by persons who have information with respect to the commission of crimes; (5) to protect innocent accused who is exonerated from disclosure of the fact that he has been under investigation, and from the expense of standing trial where there was no probability of guilt.

United States v. Proctor & Gamble, 356 U.S. 677, 681 n. 6, 78 S. Ct. 983, 986 n. 6, 2 L. Ed. 2d 1077, 1081 n. 6 (1958)).

One of the concerns is keeping witness names secret for fear that exposure could have a chilling effect on future witness cooperation in grand jury proceedings. Another concern is damage to the reputation to those investigated if they are not indicted by the grand jury or if the indictment is subsequently dismissed by a judge for legal or factual defects in it.

Particularized need requires the party requesting the grand jury information to show its relevance to the case and without it the party would suffer prejudice or an injustice. Courts may require the party seeking the information to exhaust all other means provided by the discovery process first. And if granted, the court may opt to review the material in camera to make sure the party’s need outweighs the public policy for grand jury secrecy.

In class, we discuss organized crime and its effects on business and society. Recently, Italian special agents, SCO, and the FBI arrested 13 persons in Calabria, Italy, allegedly connected with the ‘Ndrangheta crime family.

With affiliates in the U.S., the suspects were organizing cocaine shipments out of Costa Rica. Authorities arrested them in the middle of the night while they were sleeping and charged them with conspiracy to run an international drug trafficking ring.

The year-long investigation was named “Operation Columbus” and was jointly-led by federal authorities in Brooklyn and prosecutors in Calabria. Gregorio Gigliotti, an owner of pizza shop named “Cucino A Modo Mio” (I Cook My Way), located in Queens, NY, was arrested along with his wife and son. Italian investigators said they had information that he spearheaded the ring. “The Italian restaurant was the command center for bringing some drug shipments to New York and sending others to Europe or Calabria,” Grassi told reporters in Rome. The suspects allegedly shipped cocaine in crates containing cassava, a South American root vegetable.

According to the article, the ‘Ndrangheta has become Europe’s biggest cocaine dealer and has supplanted the Sicilian mafia as the major partner to the New York crime families.

Posted by Stephen D’Angelo.

Just six hours after New York Attorney General placed a temporary injunction, which would stop sites like Fanduel and DraftKings from doing business in New York, an appellate court saved them by issuing an emergency temporary stay that will allow New Yorkers to continue to use Fanduel and Draft Kings until further notice. This stay will last at least till the end of the year which is likely when a permanent decision will be made, “Eventually, both sides will go before a panel of four or five appellate judges” Randy Mastro said, from an outside council for DraftKings.

The State of New York is likely to win the case because of the wording of their law on gambling. Fantasy football gambling sites commonly use the defense that they don’t take wagers, they take entry fees. In many states, this allows them to continue to do business. But, New York is stating that their penal law does not refer to “wagering” or “betting.” Instead it states that a person, “risks something of value.”

Although New York has the upper hand, the laws in place are very vague. The statement regarding risking something of value had no relation to online fantasy sports gambling when created. It was worded this general because that would include gambling bookies in a gambling law. I personally do not believe that Fantasy sports gambling will be shut down in New York. The NBA, NHL, and MLB all own equity in Fanduel and the likelihood of the 600,000 New Yorkers who play daily fantasy to not be able to in the New Year is very slim.

Stephen is an accounting major at the Feliciano School of Business, Montclair State University, Class of 2017.

Hacking into computer systems is nothing new, and government and businesses alike have always been aware that they must be one step ahead of computer criminals. But the attack on Sony Pictures Entertainment was more than that. It was a shot across the bow in what appears to be a potentially rampant future form of warfare. As a result, every cyber attack on government or business systems must now be carefully examined to see whether it is either criminal or an act of war.

In the face of evidence from the FBI that North Korea was responsible for the Sony attack, senior Republican senators disagree with the administration that it was only a form of “cybervandalism.” Sen. McCain stated this attack “is a new form of warfare, and we have to counter that form of warfare with a better form of warfare.” Sen. Lindsey Graham called “the cyberhacking ‘an act of terrorism’ and suggested re-imposing sanctions on North Korea and adding the country to the terrorism list.” In 2001, President George W. Bush called North Korea part of the “Axis of Evil,” along with Iran and Iraq.

The FBI concluded the attack on Sony was evidenced by IP addresses directly linked to North Korea. This attack was similar to those that occurred last year against South Korean banks and media outlets. The FBI stated:

We are deeply concerned about the destructive nature of this attack on a private sector entity and the ordinary citizens who worked there. . . . Further, North Korea’s attack on SPE reaffirms that cyber threats pose one of the gravest national security dangers to the United States. Though the FBI has seen a wide variety and increasing number of cyber intrusions, the destructive nature of this attack, coupled with its coercive nature, sets it apart.

North Korea’s actions were intended to inflict significant harm on a U.S. business and suppress the right of American citizens to express themselves. Such acts of intimidation fall outside the bounds of acceptable state behavior.

There will most likely be more cooperation between business and government in sharing information and technology. Only together can this new threat to our national security and economy be defeated.

A federal court has ruled that the House of Representatives, collectively, has standing to sue the Executive Branch over a provision in the Obama-care legislation dealing with cost-sharing subsidies. These subsidies are intended to help lower income people with their deductibles and co-pays. “Many legal observers expected the lawsuit to fail on standing: that Congress wouldn’t be able to show a way in which the Obama administration had harmed legislators, a prerequisite for a court challenge.”

House Republicans argue these subsidies are being illegally paid by the Treasury to insurers and claims the House “never appropriated” the funding. The House alleges it “has been injured, and will continue to be injured, by the unconstitutional actions of defendants . . . which, among other things, usurp the House’s legislative authority.”

Courts hear cases and controversies, and unless a plaintiff has sustained some type of injury, courts cannot take the case and will dismiss it for lack of standing. But here, the court found the House has standing to sue because they are allegedly harmed as an institution, not as individual members. The court held, “The Congress is the only body empowered by the Constitution to adopt laws directing monies to be spent from the U.S. Treasury. . . . Yet this constitutional structure would collapse, and the role of the House would be meaningless, if the Executive could circumvent the appropriations process and spend funds however it pleases. If such actions are taken . . . the House as an institution has standing to sue.”