Remove Cause of Action Remove Government Remove Litigation Remove Tort
article thumbnail

No cause of action against employers for take-home COVID

At the Lectern

Responding to questions asked by the Ninth Circuit about California law, the court’s unanimous opinion by Justice Carol Corrigan precludes an action alleging a construction worker’s wife contracted COVID from her husband due to his employer’s failure to abide by government health orders at the beginning of the pandemic.

article thumbnail

Border agents, the First Amendment, and the continued vitality of Bivens

SCOTUSBlog

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.-Canada The judicially created Bivens cause of action functions as the counterpart to 42 U.S.C. Six Unknown Named Agents. Canada border.

Insiders

Sign Up for our Newsletter

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

article thumbnail

In a first for climate nuisance claims, a Hawai‘i State Court allowed Honolulu to proceed with its case against fossil fuel companies

ClimateChange-ClimateLaw

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.

Court 80
article thumbnail

Court endorses private Section 1983 enforcement of spending clause enactments

SCOTUSBlog

Gorgi Talevski’s family brought a Section 1983 action against Valparaiso Care and Rehabilitation, a government nursing facility owned by Health and Hospital Corp. Government enforcement and administrative remedies may suffice, as will a “centralized review mechanism” that would be undermined by piecemeal individual litigation.

Statute 98
article thumbnail

Australian Federal Court dismisses the novel duty of care previously found in Sharma: what does it mean for future climate litigation in Australia?

ClimateChange-ClimateLaw

The decision has significant implications for future climate litigation claims in Australia. Prior to this decision, the Sabin Center’s Network of Peer Review Scholars on Climate Litigation held a webinar on the Sharma case. Sharma and Others and its impact for climate litigation in Australia. Background on the claim.

article thumbnail

Court explores continued private enforcement of spending clause enactments

SCOTUSBlog

This case presents whether a resident deprived of those rights can sue a publicly owned and operated nursing home under Section 1983, which provides a cause of action against government actors who deprive anyone of rights secured by the “laws” of the United States, meaning other federal statutes, including spending clause enactments.

Court 88
article thumbnail

County not immune from suit where sheriff’s deputy failed to investigate death threats.

Day on Torts

A special duty of care can arise in three ways, one of which is when “the plaintiff alleges a cause of action involving intent, malice, or reckless misconduct,” and plaintiff argued that the sheriff’s deputy here engaged in reckless misconduct such that the public duty doctrine did not apply. This opinion was released 8.5

Tort 59