Mallory v. Norfolk Southern Railway Co. Doing business in Pennsylvania – means jurisdiction in Pennsylvania

On June 27, 2023, the United States Supreme Court issued an opinion in the Mallory v. Norfolk Southern Railway Co case. The case involved a Virginia resident suing his Virginia-based employer in Pennsylvania state court for injuries sustained in Ohio and Virginia. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruled it lacked jurisdiction, but the U.S. Supreme Court reversed this decision.

The U.S. Supreme Court's decision was based on a Pennsylvania statute stating that when a foreign corporation registers to do business in the state, it consents to the general jurisdiction of Pennsylvania courts. This means that, regardless of where the parties are located or where the cause of action arose, the corporation must accept Pennsylvania's jurisdiction to do business in the state.

image: Justia's Verdict

Pennsylvania is the only state with such a requirement tied to corporate registration. The dissenting opinion argues that this goes against the Due Process Clause, which traditionally prevents state courts from asserting general jurisdiction over foreign corporations merely because they do business in the state. The majority opinion, however, allows states to establish such jurisdictional requirements through legislative acts.

Justice Gorsuch wrote the majority opinion, joined by Justices Thomas, Alito, Sotomayor, and Jackson. Justice Barrett wrote the dissenting opinion, joined by Justices Roberts, Kagan, and Kavanaugh.

Marius Krause, Referendar, BridgehouseLaw Charlotte

"Mickey Mouse" turns Public Domain

Happy 95^th Birthday, Mickey Mouse! As a present, starting next year, you will be part of the public domain! How exciting!

Copyright law has always tried to give way to and protect the creativity of individuals – be it art, music, or drama. Although creative works should always be protected, after a specific time, they become ingrained in the fabric of society. There should no longer be any need for the original creator – or their heirs – to still gain economic advantages from this work. The zeitgeist we are currently in would not be the same if we couldn’t publicly use the works of Mozart or Beethoven or see the art of Michelangelo or DaVinci. Soon, Walt Disney’s pride and joy will be part of this great group of works, at least in his most original form.

Being in the public domain means anyone can use it without having to get a license for it. That means that in his Steamboat Willie era, Mickey Mouse could be freely utilized by anyone without paying The Walt Disney Company to use him. Does this mean that anyone can use the character? In principle, yes. But there is a caveat. Mickey Mouse is still used as a trademark to represent the essence of the Disney Company’s brand. Mickey’s signature style – the one we think of as more prominent pupils, red shorts, white gloves, and yellow shoes – is still not free to use. If you have kids, you may have noticed how the past few Disney films include a snippet of the Steamboat Willie era Mickey Mouse. This tactic has been used to remind people that, even though this specific image will now be copied and used in other ways than what Disney has used it for, it is still emblematic of their company.

image: Flatland KC

Look no further than the 2023 horror film: “Winnie-The-Pooh: Blood and Honey.” The original Winnie-The-Pooh stories were published in 1926 by A.A. Milne and have gone into the public domain. The fundamental concepts of the story, which are the ones that are no longer protected, can be used, and works derived from them can be put out to the public without getting into legal problems. This horror film has the critical components in the characters and general disposition of the story but does not infringe on particular trademarks that may still be protected. It is similar to how Disney has protection in their version of classic fairytales and stories: Cinderella, Snow White, or Aladdin, but can’t stop anyone else from using the elements from those stories in their version.

So, once again, Happy Birthday, Mickey Mouse! Good luck in the public domain. Let’s hope people use your image positively (and don’t get in trouble for infringing on the trademark!).

José Portabella, Law Clerk, BridgehouseLaw Charlotte

ChatGPT is a Bad Lawyer

In April 2023, a Colorado lawyer prepared a motion to set aside judgment in a civil case for his client. During his drafting, the attorney used ChatGPT, the popular AI chatbot, to find a case law to support his client’s argument. The only problem was that the cases ChatGPT cited were either inaccurate or did not exist. When confronted by his presiding judge, the attorney admitted he had not verified the cited cases. This past week, that attorney has had his license temporarily suspended for at least 90 days with a two-year probationary period.

image: wikipedia

A similar story played out in June when two New York lawyers received sanctions for submitting a legal brief that included fictitious case cites generated by ChatGPT, with the presiding judge calling one case cite “gibberish.” These lawyers were required to pay a $5,000 fine and notify the real judges that had been claimed to author the fake cases in their brief.

These two stories are part of the current wave of AI excitement that has begun to impact the legal world. With the AI legal software market projected to be in the billions by 2030, AI has real potential to be an effective tool that helps lawyers and brings costs down for clients. However, as these two examples clearly show, using AI is not a foolproof plan, and legal professionals nationwide are scrambling to catch up with the new technology. This year, the American Bar Association (ABA) created a Task Force on Law and AI to study and address potential risks and the impact of AI in the legal world. Individual judges also decide how to handle the use of AI, whether it be a ban, disclosing its use, or incorporating it into honor codes. Even the judge who sanctioned the New York attorneys stated that there is nothing inherently improper in using AI for assistance.  

Time will tell if AI reinvents the legal profession or if things largely remain the same. However, we can see that a blind embrace of AI without proper care or oversight can have professional, financial, and embarrassing ramifications.

Luca Tappa, Law Clerk, BridgehouseLaw LLP, Charlotte