Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
Easterbrook, joined by a unanimous court. Chicago Lawyers' Committee For Civil Rights Under Law v. Craigslist, 519 F.3d 666 (7th Cir. 2008), [1] is a Seventh Circuit decision affirming a lower court ruling that Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (CDA) provides immunity to Internet service providers that "publish" classified ads that ...
Thomas Dart, Sheriff of Cook County v. Craigslist, Inc., 665 F. Supp. 2d 961 (N.D. Ill. Oct. 20, 2009), is a decision by the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois in which the court held that Craigslist, as an Internet service provider, was immune from wrongs committed by their users under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (CDA).
In 2006, the Committee filed suit against craigslist, Inc., the owner of craigslist.org. They alleged that craigslist, Inc. was in violation of the federal Fair Housing Act because it allowed people to post discriminatory ads. The case was decided in favor of craigslist, and in 2008, in Chicago Lawyers' Committee For Civil Rights Under Law v.
CHICAGO - A Cook County corrections deputy was arrested Friday morning and appeared in court after dozens of sheets of paper soaked in illegal drugs were found at her home.. Shadonna Jones, 54, of ...
Nic Flosi. August 9, 2024 at 4:11 PM. CHICAGO - A Chicago man has been federally charged after a shootout in the city's Near West Side neighborhood earlier this year, authorities announced Friday ...
R. Kelly’s attorney says they plan to seek U.S. Supreme Court review of the decision CHICAGO (AP) — The singer R. […] The post Chicago appeals court rejects R. Kelly’s challenge of 20-year ...
Craigslist Inc. Craigslist (stylized as craigslist) is a privately held American company [ 5] operating a classified advertisements website with sections devoted to jobs, housing, for sale, items wanted, services, community service, gigs, résumés, and discussion forums.
Brown v. Illinois, 422 U.S. 590 (1975), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that the Fourth Amendment's protection against the introduction of evidence obtained in an illegal arrest is not attenuated by reading the defendant their Miranda Rights.