Remove Cause of Action Remove Court Rules Remove Indiana
article thumbnail

Spooky Torts: The 2023 List of Litigation Horrors

JonathanTurley

The court ruled against her and found that the park’s duty was only to “make conditions as safe as they appear to be” and that Munoz “ was aware of the risk she encountered, and expected to be surprised, startled, and scared.” particularly those with ravenous monkeys.

Tort 43
article thumbnail

September 2021 Updates to the Climate Case Charts

ClimateChange-ClimateLaw

Under the Endangered Species Act, the court vacated the FWS’s biological opinion because the incidental take statement lacked “the requisite specificity of mitigation measures for the polar bear” and because the take finding for the polar bear was arbitrary and capricious. Mayor & City Council of Baltimore v. BP p.l.c. , BP p.l.c. ,