IN 2013, Vampire Brands and TI Beverage group sued Clown Shoes Beer alleging that the latter's beer, "Vampire Slayer," infringed upon the former's trademark for "Vampire Pale Ale." Although the distribution of "Vampire Pale Ale" began after  after "Vampire Slayer," the trademark for "Vampire Pale Ale" was registered first. A claim of trademark infringement requires establishing a likelihood of consumer confusion to win. Clown Shoes felt they had a good argument that (and Vampire Law agrees) it would be very difficult to establish a likelihood of consumer confusion because 1)  Vampire Slayer is an American Imperial Stout and Vampire Pale Ale is a Belgian Pale Ale, therefore they differ in both country of origin and type of beer, and 2) the names and labels are different. Nonetheless, Clown Shoes was advised that proceeding in defending the lawsuit, even if they won, would cost $300,000-$400,000. The parties settled before trial, and the agreement included a license for Clown Shoes to continue selling their Vampire Slayer beer. Nonetheless, they decided to change the name of their beer to "Undead Party Killer." 

http://www.clownshoesbeer.com/uncategorized/11334/

Ann Kirsten Kennis, the model on the album cover for Vampire Weekends second album, "Contra" (2010), sued the band in 2010 alleging unauthorized use of her image under California right of publicity law. 

The right of publicity protects the economic interest one has in the use of their image or likeness (generally applies to celebrities). This is  distinguished from the right of privacy tort of appropriation which focuses on the emotional harm caused by the unauthorized use of one's image or likeness (generally applies to the average person). 

As an  economic-based right, the right of publicity is often descendible and alienable, whereas the tort of appropriation belongs only  to the injured person and cannot be alienated or devised. As such, right of publicity is generally a preferred cause of action. The plaintiff in this case is a model, and, therefore, should be able to satisfy the elements of the right of publicity as she can establish the economic value of her image from her career.

Click here for Vanity Fair's article on the lawsuit: http://www.vanityfair.com/culture/2010/08/vampire-weekend-scandal-201008. 

Rivaroxaban, an anticoagulant (blood-thinning) medication marketed as Xarelto in the US by Johnson & Johnson subsidiary Janssen Pharmaceuticals is the subject of US lawsuits for wrongful death and other injuries. Xarelto is manufactured by Bayer. A side effect of the drug is uncontrollable bleeding, and there is no antidote. Lawsuits filed by those claiming injury from the drug say they were not warned sufficiently about the medication's risk, which constitutes negligence by Bayer and Johnson & Johnson. 

http://www.drugwatch.com/xarelto/lawsuit/

Louisiana Revised Statute 14:107.1(B)(3)  states: "Any person committing, attempting to commit, or conspiring with another to commit a ritualistic act may be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than five years or fined not more than five thousand dollars, or both."

RS 14:107.1(B)(1) defines "ritualistic acts" as "those acts undertaken as part of a ceremony, rite, initiation, observance, performance, or practice that result in or are intended to result in:.... ingestion of human or animal blood." [Other ritualistic acts defined by the statute omitted.]


https://legis.la.gov/Legis/Law.aspx?d=78261

In the 2013 case  Missouri v. McNeely, the U.S. Supreme Court held an involuntary blood draw is a "search" under the Fourth Amendment. Therefore, a search warrant is generally required, subject to certain exceptions. The court further held that in a routine DUI case such as this, there is no general emergency exception to a search warrant. 

The argument for an emergency exception made is that a suspect's blood alcohol content naturally dissipates, therefore time is of the essence and a warrant cannot be reasonably obtained without unduly undermining police investigation. 

The Court reasoned that technology now allows a warrant to be obtained extremely quickly via telephone or email, and that magistrates are typically  available 24 hours a day to provide such warrants. Any emergency exception to the general warrant requirement are always to be decided on a case-by-case basis, but the facts of this case do not constitute an emergency.

You can find the Supreme Court opinion here: http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/11-1425_cb8e.pdf.