Federal Reporter, Third Series

Zeran v. America Online, Inc., 129 F.3d 327 (4th Cir. 1997), is a case in which the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit determined the immunity of Internet service providers for wrongs committed by their users under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. The statute 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." The Fourth Circuit held that plaintiff Kenneth Zeran's claims of malfeasance by America Online were barred by the statute, holding that Section 230 "creates a federal immunity to any cause of action that would make service providers liable for information originating with a third-party user of the service."

Bensusan Restaurant Corp. v. King, 126 F.3d 25, is a 1997 United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit case that helped define the parameters of personal jurisdiction in the Internet context, specifically for passive websites that only advertise local services. The opinion, written by Judge Ellsworth Van Graafeiland, affirmed the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York's holding that defendant Richard B. King's Internet website did not satisfy New York's long-arm statute requirements for plaintiff Bensusan Restaurant Corporation to bring a trademark infringement suit in New York.

Andrew Holmes v. California National Guard, 124 F.3d 1126 (9th Cir. 1998) was a federal court case heard by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, that upheld the "don't ask, don't tell" policy that restricted service by gays and lesbians in the California National Guard of the United States. The court decided that a member of the National Guard could not be discharged for saying publicly that he or she is homosexual or bisexual, but could be restricted to assignments that did not require recognition by the federal government.

United States v. Thomas, 116 F.3d 606 (2nd Cir. 1997), was a case in which the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit ruled that a juror could not be removed from a jury on the ground that the juror was acting in purposeful disregard of the court's instructions on the law, when the record evidence raises a possibility that the juror was simply unpersuaded by the Government's case against the defendants. The case had important implications for secrecy of the jury deliberation process outweighs the ability to dismiss a juror for nullification.

Bown v. Gwinnett County School District, 112 F.3d 1464 (11th Cir. 1997), refers to an Eleventh Circuit Court case in which the plaintiff, Brian Bown, a school teacher, challenged as an unconstitutional Establishment Clause violation Georgia's law requiring a "Moment of Quiet Reflection". The Court ruled that the Moment of Quiet Reflection was not unconstitutional. The Supreme Court of the United States denied certiorari for an appeal.

Saadeh v. Farouki, 107 F.3d 52 (D.C. Cir. 1997), was a case decided in the D.C. Circuit that espoused a narrow reading of 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a) in order to limit federal diversity jurisdiction.

Fonar Corp. v. General Electric Co., 107 F.3d 1543 (Fed. Cir. 1997), was a case decided in 1997 by the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit concerning source code and the disclosure requirement for software patents.

Lockwood v. American Airlines, Inc., 107 F.3d 1565 (Fed. Cir. 1997), was a case for the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in which Lawrence B. Lockwood sued American Airlines, Inc for patent infringement for their reservation system, SABREvision. The case was first heard by the United States District Court for the Southern District of California, which ruled in favor of American Airlines, Inc. In the summary judgment for that case, the court ruled that American Airlines, Inc's SABREvision system did not infringe on U.S. Patent Re. 32,115, U.S. Patent 4,567,359, and U.S. Patent 5,309,355 held by Lockwood. Furthermore, the court ruled that the '355 patent was invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 102 and the asserted claims of the '359 patent were invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 103.

United States v. Fuentes, 105 F.3d 487 (9th Cir. 1997), was a 1997 case in which the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled that "Mere refusal to consent to a stop or search does not give rise to reasonable suspicion or probable cause." The case involved a Terry stop at an airport of a suspected drug smuggler, and his subsequent flight attempt from Drug Enforcement Administration agents that, along with other suspicious factors, did give the officers probable cause to arrest him.

Alperin v. Vatican Bank was an unsuccessful class action lawsuit filed by Holocaust survivors against the Institute for the Works of Religion ("Vatican Bank" or "IOR") and the Franciscan Order ("Order of Friars Minor"). The case was filed in San Francisco, California on November 15, 1999.

United States v. Alkhabaz, 104 F.3d 1492 (6th Cir. 1997) was a case brought against University of Michigan undergraduate Abraham Jacob Alkhabaz, a.k.a. Jake Baker, related to several incidents regarding snuff stories that he wrote while he was a student at the University of Michigan. Alkhabaz was charged with violation of 18 U.S.C. s 875(c), communicating via interstate or foreign commerce threats to kidnap or injure another person. The case raised immediate First Amendment concerns and is considered an important one in the history of cyber law.

United States v. Rybar, 103 F.3d 273 (3d Cir. 1996), is a case which was argued before the Third Circuit Court of Appeals on September 13, 1995, and decided on December 30, 1996. The appeal addressed the constitutionality of a provision of the Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986 under the Commerce Clause and the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution.

United States v. Brechner, 99 F.3d 96 (2d Cir. 1996), is a Second Circuit Court of Appeals decision holding that a defendant's failure to provide entirely truthful information pursuant to a plea agreement is a legitimate basis for prosecutors to revoke a promise to move for a downward departure at sentencing.

International Insurance Co. v. Duryee, 96 F.3d 837 (6th Cir. 1996), was a case decided by the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit that held unconstitutional a statute enacted by the Ohio legislature that sought to discourage removal jurisdiction.

Nabozny v. Podlesny, 92 F.3d 446 (7th Cir. 1996) was a case heard in the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit regarding the protection of a school student in Ashland, Wisconsin, who had been harassed and bullied by classmates because of his sexual orientation. The plaintiff in the case—Jamie Nabozny—sought damages from school officials for their failure to protect him from the bullying. A jury found that this failure violated Nabozny's constitutional rights. Nabozny settled the case for $962,000 in damages.

Piscataway School Board v. Taxman, 91 F.3d 1547 (3d Cir. 1996) is a United States labor law case on racial discrimination, that began in 1989 against the Piscataway Township Schools.

CompuServe, Inc. v. Patterson was a court case heard before the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals which held that contacts and contracts negotiated through the Internet with a party in a different state were sufficient to grant personal jurisdiction in that state. In particular, the court held that Patterson's use of storage, electronic transmission of files, and advertisement through CompuServe's network in Ohio were sufficient to grant Ohio personal jurisdiction over Patterson.

ProCD, Inc. v. Zeidenberg, 86 F.3d 1447 (7th Cir., 1996), was a court ruling at the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. The case is a significant precedent on the matter of the applicability of American contract law to new types of shrinkwrap licenses that arose with home computing and the Internet in the 1990s, and whether such licenses are enforceable contracts.

Hopwood v. Texas, 78 F.3d 932 (5th Cir. 1996), was the first successful legal challenge to a university's affirmative action policy in student admissions since Regents of the University of California v. Bakke. In Hopwood, four white plaintiffs who had been rejected from University of Texas at Austin's School of Law challenged the institution's admissions policy on equal protection grounds and prevailed. After seven years as a precedent in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, the Hopwood decision was abrogated by the U.S. Supreme Court in 2003.

Immediato v. Rye Neck School District, 73 F.3d 454 (2d. Cir. 1996) was a Second Circuit Court of Appeals case involving the petitioner, a boy named Daniel Immediato and his parents, Eugene and Diane Immediato, against the respondent, Rye Neck School District in the village of Mamaroneck, New York. The court held that the school district did not violate the Immediato's rights by requiring him to perform community service.

Carter v. Helmsley-Spear, Inc. 861 F. Supp. 303 (S.D.N.Y. 1994), rev'd 71 F.3d 77 (2d Cir. 1995), cert. denied 116 S. Ct. 1824 (1996).

Price v. United States (1995) was a lawsuit concerning the ownership of certain artwork seized by the United States in Germany in the aftermath of World War II. It was decided by the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, which overturned an initial judgment of the District Court for the Southern District of Texas. The decision was based on the definition of the tort of conversion and the applicability of the principle of sovereign immunity.

Simon v. Commissioner, 68 F.3d 41 (2d. Cir. 1995), was a decision by the Second Circuit of the United States Court of Appeals relating to the deductibility of expensive items or tools that may increase in value as a collectible but decrease in value if used in the course of a business or trade.

Microsoft Corp. v. DAK Indus., Inc. 66 F.3d 1091 (9th Cir 1995) is a court case in which Microsoft contended that in being licensed rights to sell Microsoft Word (Word) software, the then-bankrupt DAK Industries had been granted permission to use this intellectual property, so Microsoft was entitled to receive payments during post-bankruptcy in the form of royalties.

Campbell v. St. Tammany Parish School Board, 64 F.3d 184 (5th Cir. 1995), was a United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit case involving a First Amendment challenge to the removal of a book from public school libraries. The decision was overruled in 2025 by the en banc Fifth Circuit in Little v. Llano County.

Peloza v. Capistrano Unified School District, 37 F.3d 517 (9th Cir. 1994), was a 1994 court case heard by United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in which a creationist schoolteacher, John E. Peloza claimed that Establishment Clause of the United States Constitution along with his own right to free speech was violated by the requirement to teach the "religion" of "evolutionism". The court found against Peloza, finding that evolution was science not religion and that the Capistrano Unified School District school board were right to restrict his teaching of creationism in light of the 1987 Supreme Court decision Edwards v. Aguillard. One of the three appeals judges, Poole, partially dissented from the majority's free speech and due process opinions.

Steve Jackson Games, Inc. v. United States Secret Service, 816 F. Supp. 432 (W.D. Tex. 1993), was a lawsuit arising from a 1990 raid by the United States Secret Service on the headquarters of Steve Jackson Games (SJG) in Austin, Texas. The raid, along with the Secret Service's unrelated Operation Sundevil, was influential in the founding of the Electronic Frontier Foundation.

Apple Computer, Inc. v. Microsoft Corporation, 35 F.3d 1435 (9th Cir. 1994), was a copyright infringement lawsuit in which Apple Computer, Inc. (now Apple Inc.) sought to prevent Microsoft and Hewlett-Packard from using visual graphical user interface (GUI) elements that were similar to those in Apple's Lisa and Macintosh operating systems. The court ruled that, "Apple cannot get patent-like protection for the idea of a graphical user interface, or the idea of a desktop metaphor [under copyright law]...". In the midst of the Apple v. Microsoft lawsuit, Xerox also sued Apple alleging that Mac's GUI was heavily based on Xerox's. The district court dismissed Xerox's claims without addressing whether Apple's GUI infringed Xerox's.

In re Alappat, 33 F.3d 1526 (Fed. Cir. 1994), along with In re Lowry and the State Street Bank case, form an important mid-to-late-1990s trilogy of Federal Circuit opinions because in these cases, that court changed course by abandoning the Freeman-Walter-Abele Test that it had previously used to determine patent eligibility of software patents and patent applications. The result was to open a floodgate of software and business-method patent applications, many or most of which later became invalid patents as a result of Supreme Court opinions in the early part of the following century in Bilski v. Kappos and Alice v. CLS Bank.

In re Lowry, 32 F.3d 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1994) was a 1994 decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on the patent eligibility of data structures. The decision, which reversed a PTO rejection of data structure claims, was followed by a significant change in PTO policy as to granting software related patents, a cessation of PTO appeals to the Supreme Court from reversals of PTO rejections of software patent applications, an increasing lenity at the Federal Circuit toward such patents and patent applications, and a great increase in the number of software patents issued by the PTO.

In re Schrader, 22 F.3d 290 (Fed. Cir. 1994) is a 1994 decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in which the court summarized and synthesized its precedents under the Freeman-Walter-Abele Test of patent eligibility. Under this test a key element is that the claimed invention is implemented with some type of hardware—that is, a particular machine. This was one of the last Federal Circuit decisions using that test.

Geary v. Visitation of Blessed Virgin Mary School, 7 F.3d 324 (3d Cir. 1993), was a court case in the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit which considered whether a religious school in Darby, Pennsylvania could be sued for age discrimination.

DeMarco v. Holy Cross High School 4 F.3d 166 (2nd Cir. 1993) was a discrimination case brought under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 ("ADEA"). The appellant, Guy DeMarco, was released from employment before his eligibility for tenure at the age of forty-nine. Holy Cross High School argued that it was not subject to ADEA laws and that if it were, this case against it violated the Free Exercise Clause and the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. The school also argued that DeMarco had failed to utilize the administrative remedies available.

Comprehensive Technologies International, Inc. v. Software Artisans, Inc., 3 F.3d 730 (4th Cir. 1993) was a case in which the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit discussed legal tests for software copyright infringement, and ruled that trade secret misappropriation requires more than circumstantial evidence. The case also ruled on what terms may be reasonable and enforceable in non-compete agreements.