Does Updating A Blog Post Restart The Statute Of Limitations?

The Volokh Conspiracy:  An interesting decision, stemming from the Wolk v. Olson litigation. Here’s the legal background: A publisher is generally not be liable once the statute of limitations (generally a year or longer) has run since the original publication. At that point, under the “single publication rule” — which is generally accepted in most states, and has generally been applied to the Internet in the cases that have considered the issue — no further lawsuits can be brought based on the original post, even if the publisher eventually learns that the post is false. The mere fact that a blog post is being copied to a reader’s computer each time it’s accessed doesn’t constitute a new publication that restarts the statute of limitations.

But do changes to the post constitute a republication, and restart the statute? Sufficiently substantive changes might, but for modest changes — such as most changes in a URL — the answer is likely no. A few cases have so held, see Canatella v. Van De Kamp (9th Cir. 2007) and In re Davis (W.D. Ky. 2006); the judge in this case suggested that she took a similar view, though she ultimately decided the case on other grounds:

Amazon Fights States Over Sales Tax

Tax Prof Blog: Amazon.com Inc., the world’s largest online retailer, hasn’t charged sales tax in most states since its founding in 1994. And it has taken some extreme measures to keep it that way.

Among them: Staff traveling around the U.S. have been required to first consult a company map that shades each state red, yellow or green, said three people who have worked for the retailer. These people said they needed permission from managers or company lawyers before entering “red” states because a worker’s actions might trigger laws that force Amazon to collect taxes in those states.

Such steps to avoid local levies allow Amazon to undercut in-state retailers by the amount they must add in sales tax, which can exceed 8%.

A close examination of Amazon’s corporate practices, based on interviews with more than a dozen former employees and people who have done business with the Seattle company, as well as a review of corporate documents, indicates that the company believes its sales-tax policy is critical to its performance.

Debt Deal Eliminates Graduate School Loan Subsidies

USA Today:  A federal subsidy that aids graduate students would be eliminated to boost funding for Pell grants that help low-income undergraduates, under the compromise debt-ceiling bill moving through Congress.  That trade-off is one of the few program changes specified in the bill.

The maximum Pell grant of $5,550 would be preserved for an estimated 9 million undergraduates, according to the White House.

To pay for that, graduate students who get federally subsidized loans would see the interest on those loans begin to accrue while they’re still in school, beginning July 1 next year. Currently, that interest doesn’t begin accruing until the students graduate. That saves lots of money for doctoral candidates, medical school students, law students and others in long-term graduate programs.

 

Does the GOP Really Love The 10th Amendment?

Reason.com:  The 10th Amendment to the Constitution is like the skinny teenage girl who blossoms over the summer and suddenly finds herself besieged by suitors. Once ignored, it has found a host of champions among Republican presidential candidates who are competing to show their devotion.

The amendment contains just one sentence: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

It is a bulwark of federalism, which allows states the freedom to adopt different policies reflecting their peculiar circumstances. It was meant as a check on those who would demand uniform practices from one end of America to the other.

Affirmative Action In Colleges Possibly Back Before Supreme Court

ABA Journal: Two federal appeals decisions this year involving affirmative action and college admissions could bring the issue back before the U.S. Supreme Court.

The Washington Post takes a look at the two cases. In one, Fisher v. University of Texas, the New Orleans-based 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a race-conscious admissions policy at the University of Texas. The entire appeals court refused an en banc appeal by a 9-7 vote on June 17, Tex Parte Blog reported. According to the Post, the dissenters “practically invited the Supreme Court to step in.”

In another case, the Cincinnati-based 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals struck down a Michigan constitutional amendment banning colleges and universities from granting any preferential treatment to minorities. On Friday, Michigan’s attorney general asked for an en banc rehearing, Reuters reports. The Squire Sanders Sixth Circuit Appellate Blog posted the petition for rehearing (PDF) in the case, Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action v. Regents of the University of Michigan.

Go to Top