This site uses cookies to improve your experience. To help us insure we adhere to various privacy regulations, please select your country/region of residence. If you do not select a country, we will assume you are from the United States. Select your Cookie Settings or view our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.
Cookie Settings
Cookies and similar technologies are used on this website for proper function of the website, for tracking performance analytics and for marketing purposes. We and some of our third-party providers may use cookie data for various purposes. Please review the cookie settings below and choose your preference.
Used for the proper function of the website
Used for monitoring website traffic and interactions
Cookie Settings
Cookies and similar technologies are used on this website for proper function of the website, for tracking performance analytics and for marketing purposes. We and some of our third-party providers may use cookie data for various purposes. Please review the cookie settings below and choose your preference.
Strictly Necessary: Used for the proper function of the website
Performance/Analytics: Used for monitoring website traffic and interactions
S. _ (2021), the Supreme Courtruled that the Federal Tort Claims Act barred college student James King’s claims of police brutality. The Court unanimously held that the district court’s dismissal of King’s claims under the FTCA triggered the “judgment bar” in 28 U.S.C. King ,592 U.
May 25, 2021), plaintiff shot and injured defendant’s dog when it was on plaintiff’s property. The trial courtruled that because plaintiff was a public figure, he would have to show actual malice to succeed on his defamation claim, and that the complaint “lacked any factual allegations to support a finding of actual malice.”
Further, the Act on Promotion of Global Warming Countermeasures (national legislation providing the general framework concerning the adoption and implementation of measures to combat global warming) was revised in May 2021. Both courts took the position that the regulation of GHG emissions was a policy issue.
In the year ending June 30, 2020 (the last period for which information is publicly available) the High Court was asked to accept review in 569 cases. These are the cases where the Court has the discretion whether to hear the case or allow the lower courtruling to stand. Permission to Appeal Granted: April 7, 2021.
Starting in 2017, cities, counties, and states across the United States have filed claims (see here and here ) in state courts against fossil fuel companies seeking redress for the climate harms their products have caused. Many of these cases asserted nuisance and other tort law claims.
The focus is on the question how tort claims are connected if the contracting partners have agreed on confidentiality terms, in particular under a non-disclosure agreement. In case the agreement of the parties is ruled by the laws of a Non-European state, it is doubtful whether the harmonized European trade secret law is applicable.
April 20, 2021), plaintiff was treated by defendant for cancer on her nose. She pointed to a paragraph in the first complaint that stated: “Since this present Complaint is based upon the tort of battery, not negligence, it was not necessary that Defendants be served with a notice of potential claim 60 days before the suit is filed.”
ten years ago—at least in part due to longstanding common law rules on champerty, maintenance, [3] and patent law’s relative high risk—today third-party litigation funding (TPLF) [4] undergirds about 30% of all patent litigation, by conservative estimates. [5] Patent assertion finance today is a multibillion-dollar business. [2]
In 2021, the German Federal Constitutional Courtruled in favor of the petitioners and struck down parts of Germany’s climate law as incompatible with fundamental rights for failing to set sufficient provisions for emissions cuts beyond 2030. In Neubauer, et al.
15, 2021), plaintiff filed suit on behalf of herself and her minor son after her son was injured at middle school track and field tryouts. The Governmental Tort Liability Act (GTLA) governs suits against governmental entities in Tennessee, removing immunity for governmental entities only in certain situations. In Spearman v.
S. _ (2021), the U.S. By a vote of 5-4, the justices held that only a plaintiff concretely harmed by a defendant’s violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) has Article III standing to seek damages against that private defendant in federal court. 323, 349 (1974); see also Restatement of Torts §559 (1938).
The debate, however, has thus far not considered whether foreign law illegality should expand to bar certain non -contractual claims – a question which the Singapore Court of Appeal’s recent decision in Jonathan Ang v Lyu Yan [2021] SGCA 12 raises. At first instance, the Singapore High Courtruled against all three defendants.
17, 2021), plaintiff and defendant were neighbors. Here, the Courtruled that there was “ample evidence that [defendant] did not wrongfully change the natural flow of surface water across its property in a way that caused the water to flood or pour in unnatural amounts upon [plaintiff’s] property[.]” (internal citations omitted).
July 15, 2021), plaintiffs filed an HCLA suit against defendant doctor based on treatment surrounding the birth of minor plaintiff. WTMG is a governmental entity under the definitions in the Governmental Tort Liability Act. Next, the Court looked at whether defendant received the same benefits as other employees. In Braylon W.
The UK Supreme Courtruled that the cause of action in the aftermath of the 2011 Bonga offshore oil spill accrued at the moment when the oil reached the shore. The relevant facts are summarized by the UK Supreme Court as follows at [6] and [7]: (…) The Bonga oil field is located approximately 120 km off the coast of Nigeria.
In the case at hand, one can hardly argue that the Court has the jurisdiction under Article 265 of the CPL, as the statue is not located in China when the action was filed, nor did the defendants steal it or purchase it in China, nor do they have distrainable property or representative office in China. Concluding Remarks. De dr. int.
July 16, 2021), plaintiff and defendant were brother and sister. In general, when the property converted is a negotiable instrument, the damage is done, and the tort is complete when the instrument is negotiated, regardless of the plaintiff’s ignorance of the conversion.” In Pomeroy v. McGinnis , No. E2020-00960-COA-R3-CV (Tenn.
Where plaintiff alleged that defendant attorney fraudulently charged a higher hourly rate than what was agreed upon, the trial court should have engaged in a three-factor analysis to determine whether the written fee agreement could be used to defeat the fraud claim. In Vazeen v. M2019-01395-COA-R3-CV (Tenn.
As was briefly announced earlier on this blog , on 29 January 2021, the Dutch Court of Appeal in The Hague gave a ruling in a long-standing litigation launched by four Nigerian farmers and the Dutch Milieudefensie. All claims addressed in the Court of Appeal ruling of 29 January 2021 are assessed according to Nigerian law.
Nevertheless, the report of the European Parliament finally adopted, together with the Draft Directive of 10 March 2021, no longer contained such rule on international jurisdiction, without explanation. Norfolk Southern Railway Co., 2023) will re-open the door to doing business jurisdiction remains to be seen (see Gardner ).
The WAMCA expanded the collective action contained in Article 3:305a DCC to include actions for compensation of damage ( Tillema , 2022; Tzankova and Kramer , 2021). More importantly for this case, with regards to torts, Article 7(2) provides jurisdiction for the courts of the place where the harmful event occurred or may occur.
Eichel: Choice of Court Agreements and Rules of Interpretation in the Context of Tort or Anti-trust Claims. In its rulings CDC (C-352/13) and Apple Sales (C-595/17) the ECJ gave a boost to the discussion on the range of choice of court agreements vis-à-vis antitrust claims. 1 Brussels Ia Regulation/Art.
The Tennessee Court of Appeals has ruled plaintiffs can pursue claims based on recklessness and gross negligence under the GTLA. July 14, 2021), plaintiffs filed suit based on the death of decedent in a fatal one-car accident. In Lawson v. Hawkins County, TN , No. E2020-01529-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. internal citations omitted).
When appealing a trial court’s order dismissing or refusing to dismiss a case under the Tennessee Public Protection Act (TPPA), the appeal “must be filed within thirty days of the entry of that order.”. Note: Chapter 28, Section 14 of Day on Torts: Leading Cases in Tennessee Tort Law has been updated to include this decision.
In the same year, a divided Supreme Courtruled in National Institute for Family and Life Advocates v. The petition now before the court was filed by Brian Tingley, who has worked in Washington for over 20 years as a licensed marriage and family counselor. 5772 against him, Tingley filed a lawsuit against the state in 2021.
In my torts class, I teach defamation and often discuss the California retraction law. The Supreme Courtruled that tort law could not be used to overcome First Amendment protections for free speech or the free press. The source was Lev Parnas, a dubious character and long-time associate of Rudy Giuliani.
Today Bob Baffert, the trainer of the 2021 Kentucky Derby winner Medina Spirit, admitted today that the now disqualified horse was treated with an anti-fungal ointment called Otomax, which includes betamethasone. Courts are often faced with a reduction in the opportunity of survival or profits. He had gastric cancer and died later.
Where the other driver in a car accident case died before suit was filed and the plaintiff failed to “timely file his tort action against the personal representative within the applicable statute of limitations,” summary judgment for the personal representative was affirmed. Luethke , No. E2020-00317-COA-R3-CV (Tenn.
Share The Supreme Court on Thursday put a bankruptcy plan for Purdue Pharma, the manufacturer of the highly addictive opioid painkiller OxyContin, on hold while it reviews a challenge to the legality of the plan, which would shield the Sackler family, the owners of the drug company, from lawsuits. There were no recorded dissents.
The result is a wicked brew of negligence, product defects, intentional torts, and every other tort and crime known above the netherworld. So without further ado, here are this year’s spookiest of torts. Both Kelly and Rando sued for torts ranging from assault to intentional infliction of emotional distress.
On October 5, 2021, the site Above the Law ran a story by Senior editor Kathryn Rubino about what she described as a vehemently racist law student who was given a prestigious clerkship by William H. chief judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. Reader’s Digest Association , 443 U.S. 157, 168 (1979).
Here is my annual list of Halloween torts and crimes. Halloween has everything for a torts-filled holiday: battery, trespass, defamation, nuisance, product liability and more. However, my students and I often discuss the remarkably wide range of torts that comes with All Hallow’s Eve. In another June 2023 decision in Munoz v.
A picture has been circulating on the Internet among Democratic and liberal posters that purportedly showed Republicans praying at a gold-colored statue of former President Donald Trump at the 2021 Conservative Political Action Convention (CPAC). 3, 2021 and included evangelical figures like Pastor Paula White-Cain.
Share The Relist Watch column examines cert petitions that the Supreme Court has “relisted” for its upcoming conference. As October Term 2021 winds to a close, the Supreme Court is holding its penultimate scheduled conference this week. But on remand, the Texas courtruled that the inadequate counsel had not prejudiced Andrus.
As a torts professor, it has been a bonanza for my students to see different issues raised in such cases involving public officials and public figures. The filings raise some interesting questions for tort actions between two public figures. See, e.g., here and here and here and here and here and here and here ).
Circuit Vacated Trump EPA’s Affordable Clean Energy Rule. On January 19, 2021, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the U.S. The court directed that issuance of the mandate be withheld until seven days after disposition of any petition for rehearing or petition for rehearing en banc. FEATURED CASE.
On May 28, the Maryland state court hearing Baltimore’s case stayed the proceedings pending the Fourth Circuit’ review of the defendants’ other grounds for appeal. May 17, 2021). DECISIONS AND SETTLEMENTS Supreme Court Sent Other Climate Cases Back to Lower Appellate Courts for Review of Other Grounds for Removal.
The second “Count Five” is actually just a demand for punitive damages, rather than an actual separate tort. In 2011, the courtruled 8-1 in favor of Westboro Baptist Church, an infamous group of zealots who engaged in homophobic protests at the funerals of slain American troops. In Brandenburg v.
We organize all of the trending information in your field so you don't have to. Join 99,000+ users and stay up to date on the latest articles your peers are reading.
You know about us, now we want to get to know you!
Let's personalize your content
Let's get even more personalized
We recognize your account from another site in our network, please click 'Send Email' below to continue with verifying your account and setting a password.
Let's personalize your content