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 challenged statute, N.C. The text of the statute covered actions such as unauthorized removal of data or documents, capturing of images, “intentionally” placing unattended recording devices on employer premises or substantially interfering with the employer’s ownership of the property.
Further, where the fraud was related to the purchase of plaintiff’s home, and the jury awarded plaintiff the amount she paid for the home in compensatorydamages, that award was affirmed. On appeal, the verdict for compensatorydamages was affirmed, but the punitive award was vacated and remanded for further proceedings.
Where the gravamen of plaintiff’s complaint was his tort claim for defamation seeking unliquidated damages, the chancery court did not have subject matter jurisdiction and the case should have been transferred to circuit court. In Lowery v. Redmond , No. W2021-00611-COA-R3-CV (Tenn.
The fatal shooting at Bonanza Creek Ranch already has the makings of a blockbuster tort action. ” The question is not whether but when the first torts lawsuit will be filed. .” What is clear is that there is an abundance of evidence to support a tort action even at this early stage.
Rademacher took a closer look at the BGH’s landmark decision from 1992, which deemed the concept of punitive damages intolerable in Germany mainly because its function to punish and deter doesn’t fall in the scope of German private law’s concept of strict compensation; punishment and deterrence are entirely reserved for criminal law.
The Supreme Court ruled that tort law could not be used to overcome First Amendment protections for free speech or the free press. compensatorydamages and $300,000.00 punitive damages. Congress recognized the threat that tort-based lawsuits pose to freedom of speech in the new and burgeoning Internet medium.
The ACA (in Section 1557) bars federally funded health care programs from discriminating in violation of certain civil rights statutes, including the Rehabilitation Act. The same is true, in effect, of other antidiscrimination statutes, such as Title IX.
20-219 , asks whether the compensatorydamages available under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act and the statutes that incorporate its remedies, such as the Rehabilitation Act and the Affordable Care Act , include compensation for emotional distress. The solicitor general recommends the court grant review. Cummings v. Cummings v.
The First Circuit—like the Fourth, Ninth, and Tenth Circuits in other climate change cases—concluded that the scope of its appellate review was limited to whether the defendants properly removed the case under the federal-officer removal statute. County of Maui v. Sunoco LP , No. 2CCV-20-0000283 (Haw.
The magistrate judge concluded that the suit was barred by the statute of limitations. The court further found that the plaintiffs conceded that venue in Boulder County was not proper for San Miguel under this statute. WildEarth Guardians v. Mountain Coal Co. , 1:20-cv-01342 (D. Coverage of the oral argument is available here.
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