History
  • No items yet
midpage
Barrett v. Rosenthal
2004 D.A.R. 4619
| Cal. | 2004
|
Check Treatment
12 Cal. Rptr. 3d 48 (2004)
87 P.3d 797

BARRETT
v.
ROSENTHAL.

No. S122953.

Supreme Court of California

April 14, 2004.

Christopher E. Grell, Law Offices of Christopher E. Grell, Oakland, CA, for Plaintiff and Appellant.

Mark Goldowitz, Law Office Mark Goldowitz, Berkeley, CA, Lisa Mija Sitkin, Roger R. Myers, Steinhart & Falconer LLP, San Francisco, CA, for Defendant and Respondent.

Petition for review granted.

In addition to the issues set forth in the petition for review, the court requests the parties to include briefing on the following questions: (1) What is the meaning of the term "user" under section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (47 U.S.C. section 230)? (2) For purposes of the issue presented by this case, does it matter whether a user engaged in active or passive conduct?

GEORGE, C.J., KENNARD, BAXTER, WERDEGAR, CHIN, BROWN and MORENO, JJ., concur.

Case Details

Case Name: Barrett v. Rosenthal
Court Name: California Supreme Court
Date Published: Apr 14, 2004
Citation: 2004 D.A.R. 4619
Docket Number: S122953
Court Abbreviation: Cal.
AI-generated responses must be verified and are not legal advice.
Your Notebook is empty. To add cases, bookmark them from your search, or select Add Cases to extract citations from a PDF or a block of text.