No. 21-735

Jim Olive Photography, dba Photolive, Inc. v. University of Houston System

Lower Court: Texas
Docketed: 2021-11-17
Status: Denied
Type: Paid
Response RequestedResponse WaivedRelisted (2) Experienced Counsel
Tags: cedar-point-nursery copyright-infringement fifth-amendment fourteenth-amendment government-appropriation right-to-exclude takings-clause
Key Terms:
FifthAmendment Takings Copyright Patent
Latest Conference: 2022-03-18 (distributed 2 times)
Question Presented (AI Summary)

Whether the government's appropriation of a copyright owner's right to exclude constitutes a per se taking under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments in light of Cedar Point Nursery v. Hassid

Question Presented (OCR Extract)

QUESTION PRESENTED In the decision below, the Supreme Court of Texas rejected the argument that copyright infringement by a government entity appropriates “the right to exclude everyone from use of [his] copyrighted materials,” and therefore constitutes a per se taking under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. App. 16. The court instead held that the government appropriation of a copyright owner’s right to exclude was insufficient to warrant per se treatment and dismissed Petitioner’s case for failing to adequately plead a violation of the Takings Clause. App. 22. Five days later, this Court issued its decision in Cedar Point Nursery v. Hassid, 141 S. Ct. 2063 (June 23, 2021), which held that a government commits a per se violation of the Takings Clause when it appropriates an owner’s “right to exclude” others from utilizing his property and appropriates for itself “a right to invade” that property. Id. at 2072. The question presented is whether the petition should be granted, the decision below vacated, and the case remanded for further proceedings in light of Cedar Point Nursery?

Docket Entries

2022-03-21
Petition DENIED.
2022-02-23
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 3/18/2022.
2022-02-21
Reply of petitioner Jim Olive Photography filed. (Distributed)
2022-02-07
Brief of respondent University of Houston System in opposition filed.
2021-12-21
Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including February 7, 2022.
2021-12-20
Motion to extend the time to file a response from January 7, 2022 to February 7, 2022, submitted to The Clerk.
2021-12-08
Response Requested. (Due January 7, 2022)
2021-12-01
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 1/7/2022.
2021-11-22
Waiver of right of respondent University of Houston System to respond filed.
2021-11-15
Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due December 17, 2021)

Attorneys

Jim Olive Photography, et al.
Owen Joseph McGovernBeck Redden LLP, Petitioner
Owen Joseph McGovernBeck Redden LLP, Petitioner
University of Houston System
Judd Edward Stone IITexas Attorney General's Office, Respondent
Judd Edward Stone IITexas Attorney General's Office, Respondent