Xxxxxxxx Corp. 495 F.2d 448 (2d Cir. 1974), abrogated on other grounds by Xxxxxxxxxx v. Integrated Res., Inc., 209 F.3d 43 (2d Cir. 2000); see also Xxxxxxx v. TJX Companies, Inc., 2016 WL 8677312, n.8 (D. Mass. Sept. 30, 2016) (“[courts in this Circuit frequently employ the Second Circuit’s Xxxxxxxx factors or some version of it.”).
Xxxxxxxx Corp and IRIC, U.S. District Court Southern District of Texas; Civil Action No. 4:07-CV-02796, (ii) Huntsman Corp. and IRIC v. Ace Am. Ins. Co., et al., U.S. Xxxxxxxx Xxxxx Xxxxxxxx Xxxxxxxx of Texas, Civil Action No. 4:08-CV-1542, (iii) any insurance proceeds or other monies received by Huntsman through the adjustment process, by settlement or otherwise in connection with the April 29, 2006 Fire, or (iv) the adjustment or payment of insurance proceeds in connection with the April 29, 2006 Fire.
Xxxxxxxx Corp. 495 F.2d 448, 463 (2d Cir. 1974), abrogated on other grounds by Xxxxxxxxxx
Xxxxxxxx Corp. 495 F.2d 448, 463 (2d Cir. 1974).
Xxxxxxxx Corp. 638 F. Supp. 1015, 1018 (D. Kan. 1986) (“The plaintiffs must show that there has been some aspect of their private affairs which has been intruded upon and does not apply to matters which occur in a public place or place otherwise open to the public eye”). 720 Restatement (Second) of Torts, § 652B. the information collected and stored as a result of RFID technology, there are equally no specific statutes or regulations that sufficiently address the privacy implications of GPS tracking. Although Federal law regulates the disclosure of location information generated by cell phones (as part of CPNI), and also regulates governmental access to private/stored electronic communications, the law, however, does not apply to the location information generated by RFID or GPS implants. As Xxxxxxx points out, the Telecom Act “offers no protection for people whose privacy is violated through non- cell-phone-based collections of location information” (Reneger, 2002, p. 562). Xxxxxxx similarly agrees that while cell phone users may have a reasonable expectation of pri- vacy of their call location information, “non-cellular forms of wireless products con- taining GPS technology are not currently protected by any statutory location privacy protections” (Xxxxxxx, 2006, p. 445). Moreover, the meaning of location information is explicitly restricted to “call location information concerning the user of a commercial mobile service”,721 and therefore does not cover the more extensive location informa- tion generated by HIMs or other similar PLDs. Consequently, with the exception to the CPNI of cell phones, as the law stands now, location information generated by devices other than cell phones is not afforded adequate privacy protection. This deficiency may be partly the result of the US piecemeal legal approach to protecting privacy, which is particularly sectoral rather than all-inclusive or comprehensive. Under the US legal framework, “telecommunications carriers” are defined as “any provider of telecommunications services”.722 RFID or GPS implants could only come into the scope of the Telecom Act if companies like Digital Angel, ADS or VeriChip Corp. (now known as PositiveID), for example, were considered telecommunications carriers, commercial mobile service providers or joint venture partners. However, none of these companies are considered as any of these types of entities. As a result, there are arguably little or no legal barriers, at present, that prevent companies, like...
Xxxxxxxx Corp. 2016 WL 454441, at *3 (E.D. Mich. 2016) quoting Newburg on Class Actions § 8:17 (5th ed.).
Xxxxxxxx Corp. 495 F.2d 448 (2d Cir. 1974); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e).
Xxxxxxxx Corp. 598 F. Supp. 3d 774 (N.D. Cal. 2022) 11 504 F. Supp. 2d 998 (D. Haw. 2007) 25 731 F. App’x. 713 (9th Cir. 2018) 22, 23 Dongbu Ins. Co., 731 F. App’x. 713 (9th Cir. 2018) 21, 22 165 P.3d 1027 (Haw. 2007) 6 957 P.2d 1061 (Haw. Ct. App. 1998) 13, 14 942 P.2d 507 (Haw. 1997) 17 347 P.3d 163 (Haw. 2015) 22 829 F.3d 771 (7th Cir. 2016) 23 992 P.2d 93 (Haw. 2000) 13, 20 183 P.3d 734 (Haw. 2007) 15 No. 95–35706, 95–35759, 1996 WL 511575 (9th Cir. 1996) 20
Xxxxxxxx Corp. Adv. Pro. No. 23-01294 (MBK) in connection with the Chapter 11 Cases (the “Adversary Proceeding”) at Docket No.
Xxxxxxxx Corp. By: /s/ Xx Xxxxxxx ------------------------------ Xx Xxxxxxx President THE XXXXX CORPORATION By: /s/ Xxxxxxxx Xxxxxx ---------------------------- Xxxxxxxx Xxxxxx President SCHEDULE 1
