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
The US Supreme Court on Thursday reversed a ruling that allowed several individuals to sue food corporations Nestlé USA and Cargill over child slavery claims, limiting corporate liability under the Alien Tort Statute. The case which the Supreme Court decided was Nestlé USA, Inc. Doe I, consolidated with Cargill, Inc.
Tennessee does not recognize a common law cause of action for wrongful foreclosure. 14, 2024), the Tennessee Supreme Court held that there is no tort for wrongful foreclosure in Tennessee. The Supreme Court, however, ruled that no such claim exists in Tennessee. Wilmington Trust, N.A. , 3d — (Tenn.
Supreme Court held that the authority of a court to imply a cause of action under Bivens v. While the Court did not overrule Bivens , it did emphasize that recognizing a Bivens cause of action is “a disfavored judicial activity.”. Supreme Court’s Decision. . _ (2022), the U.S. In Bivens v.
Supreme Court clarified when plaintiffs can seek redress in U.S. courts for human rights abuses that occur overseas. By a vote of 8-1, the Court held that to plead facts sufficient to support a domestic application of the Alien Tort Statute, 28 U.S.C. Supreme Court’s Decision. The Supreme Court reversed.
In FS Cairo (Nile Plaza) LLC v Lady Brownlie [2021] UKSC 45 (“ Brownlie II ”), the Supreme Court held as a matter of ratio by a 4:1 majority that consequential loss satisfies the ‘tort gateway’ in Practice Direction (“ PD ”) 6B, para. Economic torts? Background. PD 6B, para. Three main reasons were given.
Victory Woodworks , the Supreme Court today holds that employers currently can’t be sued for failing to prevent the spread of COVID-19 to employees’ household members. Allowing liability “would impose an intolerable burden on employers and society in contravention of public policy,” the court says. In Kuciemba v.
By Adeline Chong, Singapore Management University Introduction In two decisions decided within a fortnight of each other, the Singapore Court of Appeal considered anti-suit injunctions pursued to restrain proceedings allegedly brought in breach of arbitration agreements. The same points on nullity and public policy were raised.
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 Hawai‘i Circuit Court’s decision.
Section 1983 provides a cause of action against any person acting under color of state law who deprives a person of “rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws” of the United States. The court then applied its long-standing two-step analysis to conclude that FNHRA is enforceable through Section 1983.
The Tennessee Supreme Court has agreed to accept review of a comparative fault issue concerning the tort of negligent misrepresentation. Here is a copy of the court of appeals opinion in the case , decided on March 10, 2021. The case is Pryority Partnership v. AMT Properties, LLC , No. 2020-00511-SC-R11-CV.
This suit followed, asserting several contract and property claims, as well as a tort claim for intentional interference with business relationships. The trial court dismissed the tort claim against the City pursuant to the GTLA, and dismissal was affirmed on appeal. Continue reading
A civil law breakthrough came in 2021, with the ruling of a Dutch court against Shell. In Smith v Fonterra , decided by New Zealand’s Supreme Court this week, we have perhaps the biggest common law breakthrough. New Zealand’s Court of Appeal, however, struck out all three claims, meaning that Smith would not receive his day in court.
S. _ (2021), the Supreme Court ruled 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. In Brownback v.
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. The FCRA also creates a cause of action for consumers to sue and recover damages for certain violations.
The UK Supreme Court ruled 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.
Plaintiff filed his HCLA complaint against the non-State employees in circuit court, and he filed his complaint against the State with the Division of Claims and Risk Management. The Court of Appeals began by looking at Tenn. Plaintiff attached a certificate of good faith to each complaint pursuant to Tenn. Code Ann. § In Dotson v.
For litigants embroiled in cross-border litigation, the anti-suit injunction has become a staple in the conflict of laws arsenal of common law courts. This was the scenario facing the New Zealand High Court in the recent case of Kea Investments Ltd v Wikeley Family Trustee Limited [2022] NZHC 2881.
the Supreme Court resolved a question certified by the Ninth Circuit involving the application of California’s economic loss rule. The economic loss rule generally prohibits plaintiffs from recovering tort damages in cases involving breaches of contract that cause only economic losses. Uber Technologies, Inc.
For torts scholars, it has been a bonanza of interesting issues touching on every element of defamation law. There is now an important ruling out of the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit that could have enormous implications not just for the media but anyone who retweets stories or claims.
Where plaintiff filed a notice of voluntary dismissal in his defamation case before defendants filed their petition to dismiss under the TPPA, the trial court erred by granting defendants’ petition for dismissal and awarding them attorneys’ fees and sanctions after plaintiff’s nonsuit. In Adamson v. Grove , No. internal citation omitted).
The New Zealand Court of Appeal has just released a judgment on the cross-border application of New Zealand consumer and fair trading legislation ( Body Corporate Number DPS 91535 v 3A Composites GmbH [2023] NZCA 647 ). In response, 3AC protested the New Zealand court’s jurisdiction.
Defendants moved to dismiss, arguing that the HCLA required plaintiff to send a pre-suit notice before this second suit was filed, and the trial court agreed, dismissing the case. Simply put, [defendants] were no longer on notice that [plaintiff] might pursue a cause of action for health care liability against them. Code Ann. §
The trial court granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment, finding that plaintiff could not have reasonably relied on defendant’s alleged statement, and the Court of Appeals affirmed. Note: Chapter 81, Section 4 of Day on Torts: Leading Cases in Tennessee Tort Law has been updated to include this decision.
16, 2020), plaintiff filed suit under the Governmental Tort Liability Act (GTLA) after he was injured in a car accident. The trial court granted the motion to dismiss, relying in part on the Public Duty Doctrine, and the Court of Appeals affirmed. In Kimble v. Dyer County Tennessee , No. W2019-02042-COA-R3-CV (Tenn.
The trial court found, based on the testimony of the parties, that the purpose of the annuity was to ensure that the mother would eventually qualify for Medicaid benefits. After denying defendant’s motion for summary judgment, the trial court held a bench trial. internal citation and quotation omitted). internal citations omitted).
Despite this history, a new decision out of the High Court is still shocking in its implications for further attacks on free speech. The court ruled that newspapers and television stations that post articles on social media sites like Facebook are liable for other third party comments on those posts.
One is the jurisdictional challenge of finding a competent court in the same jurisdiction as the individual users. [3] This constellation provides a strong argument for facilitating collective redress, as otherwise individual users may not be able to obtain justice for privacy infringements before the courts.
1] Like in many other common law jurisdictions, Nigerian courts recognize and enforce foreign judgments only if, in the eyes of Nigerian PIL, the foreign court had jurisdiction to render the judgment in question. [2] From a comparative perspective, Canadian courts have applied the real and substantial connection test.
Abiru to the Nigerian Supreme Court and highlighted its significance for the development of Nigerian conflict of laws. Mayela Celis on 24 November 2021 in one blog post praised the appointment of Justice Loretta Ortiz Ahlf – a private international law expert – to the Mexican Supreme Court.
Alsup in the federal district court in San Francisco will hear oral argument on motions to dismiss filed in City of Oakland v. One set of California cases – filed by San Mateo County, Marin County and Imperial City – was removed by defendants to federal court, then remanded to state court, based on Judge Vince C. BP P.L.C. ,
There are several misconceptions that exist when it comes to the Small Claims Court. litigation, as this court is not that small how it looks. Court also has a limit on the amount of legal costs that might be awarded. He went to the court, took Plaintiff’s claim form, and fill it up. So, how to claim in this case?
Nigerian legal practitioners have had to provide legal advice and represent clients before trial and appellate courts as well as arbitral tribunals on disputes involving private international law questions within the context of Nigerian law. Arabella case [which the court has now thankfully moved away from]. [8]
Share The Supreme Court will hear oral arguments on Monday in one of the highest-profile bankruptcies in recent memory: Harrington v. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit of a multi-billion-dollar bankruptcy plan for Purdue Pharma, the maker of the opioid OxyContin. First, the court of appeals explained, 11 U.S.C. § And in Sept.
Share The Supreme Court on Wednesday will consider the continued vitality and expansion of lawsuits for damages against federal officers under Bivens v. Boule considers whether to “extend” the Bivens cause of action to First Amendment retaliation claims and Fourth Amendment claims arising from immigration enforcement near the U.S.
Talevski did not reveal a Supreme Court ready to reconsider or overrule a line of cases allowing private suits for damages in federal court under 42 U.S.C. He urged the court to “finish what it started” and hold that no federal spending conditions are privately enforceable unless Congress says so in the spending enactment.
Court of Restitution, which, in 1954, declared her the rightful owner of the painting. In 2005, after his petition was denied, Claude sued in federal district court in California, where he had lived since 1980. The district court rejected all of these arguments, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit affirmed.
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. A tortaction for intentional infliction of emotional distress is likely to fail. Again, the court agreed.
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.
The Tennessee Court of Appeals has ruled plaintiffs can pursue claims based on recklessness and gross negligence under the GTLA. If this section is fulfilled and immunity is removed, courts considering a GTLA suit “proceed to another step in their analysis,” considering the public duty doctrine. In Lawson v. Hawkins County, TN , No.
Plaintiff sent defendant pre-suit notice of his claim on August 28, 2021, then filed this complaint on November 18, 2021, asserting that defendant’s “negligence caused [patient] to develop pressure ulcers, skin impairment, and infection…” Defendant filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that the suit was filed outside the statute of limitations.
Defendant had filed a motion to dismiss, which the trial court denied, ruling that plaintiff had satisfied the elements of that claim. On appeal, the Court of Appeals ruled that dismissal should have been granted. internal citation omitted). internal citations and quotations omitted). internal citation omitted).
One year and 21 days after the accident, the plaintiff filed this case under Tennessee’s Governmental Tort Liability Act against the county that employed the firefighter, the fire department, and the estate of the firefighter, who was also killed in the accident. The Court of Appeals affirmed this ruling. Booth , 344 S.W.3d
On the other hand, it is very hard to see why, more than 75 years after the crimes of the Nazis and their French collaborators in France, a foreign national (or more precisely, his or her descendants) should have a legal remedy in a US court, for all sorts of reasons. As with the Germany 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