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 declined to hear an appeal from North Carolina on Monday over the constitutionality of a state law allowing employers to sue employees working as undercover investigators. ” The denial from the Supreme Court offered no explanation or reasoning. The challenged statute, N.C.
United States , the 1950 Supreme Court case holding that the United States is not liable under the Federal Tort Claims Act for injuries sustained by members of the armed forces while on active duty and resulting from the negligence of others in the armed forces. United States. Issues : (1) Whether the doctrine of Chevron U.S.A.,
The Supreme Courtruled in favor of Nestle and Cargill on Monday in a lawsuit claiming the chocolate makers aided and abetted child slavery on African cocoa farms, reversing a ruling that allowed the claims to proceed under the Alien TortStatute.
Pursuant to the language of the statute, the trial court had held that plaintiffs’ claims could not proceed because they were based on allegations of reckless conduct. The Court of Appeals, however, disagreed. The Court of Appeals used sound reasoning to come to the correct conclusion in this case. internal citation).
Plaintiff asserted various claims against defendants, including breach of contract, fraud, intentional misrepresentation, and negligence, all of which the trial court dismissed as untimely pursuant to the three-year statute of limitations applicable to claims of injuries to real property. In Simpkins v. John Maher Builders, Inc. ,
The Court noted that plaintiff’s only evidence that the cap was dangerous was the evidence of her own fall and the fall of the alleged other unnamed homeowner, and that “[n]egligence cannot be presumed by the mere happening of an injury or accident.” internal citation omitted). Code Ann. § This opinion was released 1.5
Defendant argued that plaintiffs knew about the alleged conversion in October 2009 and that the claim was therefore time-barred, but the trial court found that the statute of limitations did not begin to run until after the father’s death. On appeal, this ruling was reversed. Code Ann. §
When appealing a trial court’s order dismissing or refusing to dismiss a case under the Tennessee Public Protection Act (TPPA), the appeal “must be filed within thirty days of the entry of that order.”. The TPPA is Tennessee’s anti-SLAPP statute, which stands for “strategic lawsuits against public participation.” In Laferney v.
This week we highlight cert petitions that ask the Supreme Court to consider cases and statutes about suing various government entities, ranging from two counties to a state governor to the United States itself. The district courtruled that Ex parte Young applied because Congress’ approval of the compact made it binding federal law.
Where plaintiffs alleged that “church entities were negligent regarding the sexual abuse of minors” by a clergyman, and the allegations included claims of fraudulent concealment through an investigation that was actually a “whitewash,” dismissal based on the statute of limitations was reversed. Woodland Presbyterian , No.
Where the other driver in a car accident case died before suit was filed and the plaintiff failed to “timely file his tort action against the personal representative within the applicable statute of limitations,” summary judgment for the personal representative was affirmed. Luethke , No. E2020-00317-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Code Ann. §
Defendant filed a petition for dismissal pursuant to the TPPA, and after finding that the TPPA applied, that plaintiff was a limited-purpose public figure in the context of this action, and that plaintiff “had not established a prima facie case for actual malice,” the trial court dismissed the case. The TPPA, Tenn. Code Ann. §
Under Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 41.01, “the right of the plaintiff to dismiss the action without prejudice is free and unrestricted except in limited and well-defined circumstances.” Rule 41.01 Note: Chapter 28, Section 14 of Day on Torts: Leading Cases in Tennessee Tort Law has been updated to include this decision.
In subsection (a)(1), which was the subsection at issue in this case, the statute only states that the certificate must say that “there is a good faith basis to maintain the action consistent with the requirements of § 29-26-115.” 3, 2019), the Courtruled that “language in a complaint cannot substitute for a proper certificate of good faith.”
In the year ending June 30, 2020 (the last period for which information is publicly available) the High Court was asked to accept review in 569 cases. These are the cases where the Court has the discretion whether to hear the case or allow the lower courtruling to stand. Seven of the civil cases are tort cases.
After discovery, DSS filed a motion for summary judgment, which the trial court granted. The trial courtruled that plaintiff had asserted a premises liability claim, and that “DSS did not owe Plaintiff a duty of care under premises liability.” Plaintiff then amended his complaint to assert claims against DSS as well.
When that friend could not find a Tennessee lawyer to take her case before the statute of limitations ran out, he sent her a sample pre-suit notice form. Note: Chapter 45, Sections 3, 9 and 12 of Day on Torts: Leading Cases in Tennessee Tort Law has been updated to include this decision. This opinion was released 3.5
The trial courtruled that “Dr. Steege did not meet the locality rule outlined in Shipley v. Merely being licensed in Tennessee or a bordering state is not enough if the expert cannot also meet the locality rule. Steege from Chapel Hill, North Carolina. Code Ann. § 26-26-115(b). Williams , 350 S.W.3d 3d 527 (Tenn.
Plaintiff attempted to rely on additional documents referred to in the SCES manual to support a finding of duty, but the Court noted that the Manual specifically referred to these additional documents in an attempt to provide proper pruning methods, not to add to defendant’s contractual duty. internal citations omitted).
United States , the justices will return to a familiar statute: the Armed Career Criminal Act, which imposes an enhanced sentence for unlawful possession of a firearm if the defendant has three convictions “committed on occasions different from one another.” Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit upheld that decision. And in Erlinger v.
Regarding the permanence of plaintiff’s injury, the Court found that plaintiffs’ experts had testified to some permanence for both his leg and back and his cognitive injuries, and that the medical testimony was “corroborated by [plaintiffs’] respective testimony that [plaintiff’s] physical and cognitive symptoms have not improved since the accident.”
According to the Supreme Court, “[a] negligent act or omission is operational when it is made (1) in the absence of a formulated policy guiding the conduct or omission; or (2) when the conduct deviates from an established plan or policy.” The Court reasoned: We conclude that the acts alleged in the complaint are operational.
The Court noted that this exact issue had been addressed in a 2020 Court of Appeals case, where the Court stated: “The law in Tennessee is well-established on this issue, and it is not the role of this Court to depart from it.” Accordingly, the Courtruled that, pursuant to Tenn. internal citation omitted).
Because of this, the Court held that the HCLA applied “regardless of the theories of liability.”. Plaintiff argued that the misrepresentations negated her consent, making the surgical procedure a medical battery, but the Courtruled that the HCLA still applied. Click on the link to see the book’s Table of Contents.
Plaintiff argued that Erlanger’s payments to UT were essentially funneled to defendant, but the Court rejected this argument. The Court noted that defendant was not a party to the contract between UT and Erlanger, and that both UT and Erlanger benefited from the affiliation agreement.
She pointed to a paragraph in the first complaint that stated: “Since this present Complaint is based upon the tort of battery, not negligence, it was not necessary that Defendants be served with a notice of potential claim 60 days before the suit is filed.” Internal citations omitted).
The Courtruled that this response was insufficient and that the statement was thus admitted, explaining: Rule 56.03 Accordingly, the Courtruled that the fact was admitted and defendant could not “be charged with actual notice.”. internal citations and quotations omitted). Summary judgment was therefore affirmed.
The Court noted that it could not locate previous case law interpreting this portion of the Rule, but that the advisory comments stated that this sentence was “thought necessary in light of Tennessee’s adoption of comparative fault.” 2), the trial court did not err in considering the testimony of [plaintiff’s wife].”.
The trial court found plaintiff’s testimony that she was not involved in setting up the annuity and had no knowledge of it to be credible, and it ruled that defendant was liable for conversion. These rulings were affirmed on appeal. In Pomeroy v. McGinnis , No. E2020-00960-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Code Ann. § 47-3-118(g). “In
Two included separate explanatory statements: Three votes for review, and a dissenting statement, in juvenile coerced plea case Two votes for review, and a dissenting statement, in youth-offender LWOP no-parole case A third case concerned domestic violence torts. The court granted review in Hohenshelt v. Superior Court (2023) 15 Cal.5th
Despite this history, a new decision out of the High Court is still shocking in its implications for further attacks on free speech. The courtruled that newspapers and television stations that post articles on social media sites like Facebook are liable for other third party comments on those posts. 47 U.S.C. §
The District Courtruled that all class members had Article III standing on each of the three statutory claims. 323, 349 (1974); see also Restatement of Torts §559 (1938). the tort of defamation. The internal credit files of the other 6,332 class members were not provided to third parties during the relevant time period.
WTMG is a governmental entity under the definitions in the Governmental Tort Liability Act. According to plaintiff, this was enough to show that defendant was not an employee of WTMG, but the Court disagreed. Next, the Court looked at whether defendant received the same benefits as other employees.
16, 2020), plaintiff filed suit under the Governmental Tort Liability Act (GTLA) after he was injured in a car accident. Based on these findings, the Courtruled that plaintiff had not met the requirements of the first exception to the Public Duty Doctrine. In Kimble v. Dyer County Tennessee , No. W2019-02042-COA-R3-CV (Tenn.
The UK Supreme Courtruled 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 case at hand is an appeal on a part of an earlier rulings. The lower courts and the UK Supreme court agreed with Shell.
After an unsuccessful negotiation, the Committee of Yunchun Village and the Committee Dongpu Village sued Van Overeem to demand the statue’s return both in Fujian Province of China and in Amsterdam of the Netherlands at the end of 2015, [2] fearing that a statute of limitation might bar their case. Concluding Remarks.
There is a tragic case out of Omaha that has led to a notable decision over tort liability for psychiatrists. Regents of University of California , which I teach in my torts class. In this case, the courtruled that that burden was not satisfied. Loyd was later found incompetent to stand trial. ” Rodriguez v.
Secondly, a court can validly exercise jurisdiction over a defendant in an action in personam where such defendant submits to the court’s jurisdiction or waives his right to raise a jurisdictional challenge. Thus, a court may only stretch its jurisdictional arm outside its territory in certain limited circumstances. [12]
A tragedy in North Carolina could present rather difficult torts questions in a wrongful death case for a grieving family. The courtruled for Google: “I conclude that it does not require the imposition of a duty. She was seriously injured after being struck by an automobile that was negligently driven by Harwood.
The focus is on the question how tort claims are connected if the contracting partners have agreed on confidentiality terms, in particular under a non-disclosure agreement. In case the agreement of the parties is ruled by the laws of a Non-European state, it is doubtful whether the harmonized European trade secret law is applicable.
Besides, Spanish courts had jurisdiction because Spain was the place of the domicile of the defendant and the claim was one of unjust enrichment – i.e. a claim in tort –, not one whose subject matter was the existence or scope of a right in rem over a real estate asset. Arguably, it was not necessary to do so.
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. In another June 2023 decision in Munoz v.
The case is brought under statutes like 18 U.S.C. Supreme Courtruled against a provision of federal law that banned computer simulations and virtual pornography under the first amendment. the Supreme Courtruled that tort law could not be used to overcome First Amendment protections for free speech or the free press.
The First Circuit reversed a trial court that dismissed the case, alleging that the American firearms industry is legally responsible for violence in Mexico. However, as a torts professor, there is a question of whether the tort element of proximate cause could be materially changed in the case.
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