Remove Cause of Action Remove Litigation Remove Tort
article thumbnail

Supreme Court Rejects Cause of Action Under Bivens Against Border Patrol Agent

Constitutional Law Reporter

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.”. In Egbert v. Boule , 596 U.S. _ (2022), the U.S. Border Patrol agent. Border Patrol agent.

article thumbnail

Smith v Fonterra: A Common Law Climate Litigation Breakthrough

ClimateChange-ClimateLaw

Litigation against major corporate greenhouse gas (GHG) emitters has proven extremely tough. Michael Smith brought tort claims against New Zealand’s seven largest GHG emitters, which are collectively responsible for one-third of all New Zealand GHG emissions. As this open-ended definition suggests, public nuisance is a slippery tort.

Insiders

Sign Up for our Newsletter

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

article thumbnail

No cause of action against employers for take-home COVID

At the Lectern

” “[E]xclusivity provisions bar a third party claim only when proof of an employee’s injury is required as an element of the cause of action,” the court says. Winning on the special relationship and workers’ compensation issues isn’t enough to get the plaintiffs to trial, however.

article thumbnail

United Kingdom Supreme Court confirms that consequential loss satisfies the tort gateway for service out of the jurisdiction

Conflict of Laws

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.

Tort 52
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 85
article thumbnail

Anti-Suit Injunctions and Dispute Resolution Clauses

Conflict of Laws

Subsequently, Asiana also pursued actions against GGS and the directors of the Gate Gourmet Group. It alleged that the directors were actively involved in the chairmans unlawful conduct and therefore liable in tort under Korean law, and GGS was vicariously liable for their actions.

Tort 45
article thumbnail

Court endorses private Section 1983 enforcement of spending clause enactments

SCOTUSBlog

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. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson wrote for a seven-justice majority.

Statute 100