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 Courtruled Thursday that a Michigan college student is unable to proceed with a Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) lawsuit against two federal officers who tackled him after mistaking him for a fugitive in 2014. ” The case now returns to the Sixth Circuit for further consideration on this issue.
The Supreme Court sided with Florida’s Medicaid program by ruling that Medicaid programs can seek tort settlement payment reimbursement for an individual’s future medical care, not just past care. Justice Sonia Sotomayor dissented from the ruling, with Justice Stephen Breyer joining.
In a case about the demise of a family business, the Court of Appeals reversed trial courtrulings for the plaintiff on tort claims of intentional interference with business relationships and conversion. In Grubb v. Grubb , No. E2023-01358-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. On appeal, the verdict for the plaintiff was reversed.
Claiming a tort of misuse of private information, ZXC sought damages and injunctive relief against Bloomberg. While it did rule in favor of ZXC, the court noted that this right did not extend once a person was charged with, and not merely being investigated for, an offence.
The UK Supreme Courtruled Wednesday that a Guantanamo Bay prisoner held by the US can bring a claim in the English and Welsh courts against UK authorities. The preliminary issue for the courts in this case was which law applied to the torts allegedly committed while Zubaydah was being held in these six countries.
Glacier sued the union in state court for “tortious destruction” of its property – the spoiled concrete. The Washington Supreme Court dismissed the case, finding that it wasn’t appropriate to apply state tort law to a labor dispute even arguably covered by NLRA under Garmon.
The Iowa Supreme Courtruled Thursday that plaintiffs cannot recover punitive damages from the state when a law enforcement officer uses excessive force. The Iowa Tort Claims Act (ITCA) prohibits an award of punitive damages against the state.
“Drugmaker can be held responsible for delaying HIV treatment rollout, courtrules”: Bob Egelko of The San Francisco Chronicle has this report. ” You can access last Tuesday’s ruling of the California Court of Appeal for the First Appellate District at this link. .”
The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court’s dismissal of the suit on grounds of sovereign immunity under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act of 1976 (FSIA). The post US court dismisses suit against Poland for seeking extradition over Nazi-looted art appeared first on JURIST - News - Legal News & Commentary.
However, Florida law waives sovereign immunity for torts, subject to exceptions. Judge Casanueva’s holding affirmed the trial court’s refusal to dismiss the class action and rejected the use of USF’s sovereign immunity defense at this stage of the class action.
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. Third, the state contended that the case was incorrectly decided.
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 Tort Statute.
.” Both the district court and the Fifth Circuit looked to NAACP v. Claiborne Hardware Co. , a 1982 case in which the Supreme Court held that speech during an assembly must incite imminent wrongdoing to be punishable.
S. _ (2021), the Supreme Courtruled 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.
Balancing “the interests of homeowners in default against those seeking affordable home loans,” the Supreme Court in Sheen v. ” The court settles a conflict in Court of Appeal case law and notes a similar divide in federal district courtrulings.
Federal law gives the Environmental Protection Agency, not federal courts, the authority to regulate greenhouse emissions in the United States, a federal appeals courtruled…
The trial courtruled that because plaintiff was a public figure, he would have to show actual malice to succeed on his defamation claim, and that the complaint “lacked any factual allegations to support a finding of actual malice.” Turning to the countercomplaint, the Court began by looking at Ms. internal citation omitted).
1252(d)(1) which holds that immigrants must first exhaust all administrative remedies before turning to a federal court for review. Glacier brought a tort claim against the Teamsters for the loss of concrete. The Teamsters are asking that the court affirm this lower courtruling, while Glacier seeks to enforce state tort law.
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. At issue here was Tenn. Code Ann. § Continue reading
In my torts class, we discuss sports torts and defenses. One of those issues is the common inclusion of waivers and binding arbitration language on the back of tickets in microscopic type. That issue came up in an interesting case involving the Chicago Cubs.
5th 93 — “ Missed break premiums count as wages, State Supreme Courtrules.” 5th 905 — “ Lenders don’t owe borrowers a general duty of care, top state courtrules.” Another CLAY award winning case is Naranjo v. Spectrum Security Services, Inc. 2022) 13 Cal.5th
The Osaka District Court and the Osaka High Courtruled that the plaintiffs lacked standing to bring the claims related to GHG emissions. Both courts took the position that the regulation of GHG emissions was a policy issue.
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 tort claims in this case were subject to the three-year statute of limitations applicable to injuries to real property, and the Court of Appeals agreed that this limitations period would not be tolled by the discovery rule under the facts here. This opinion was released three months after the case was assigned on briefs.
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.
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). This opinion was released 1.5
.” The Ohio Supreme Court just ruled that selling a boneless chicken dish does not mean that it is boneless because it is referring to a “cooking style not a guarantee.” ” In my torts class, I teach food contamination and liability cases.
If a party petitions for dismissal under the TPPA and “makes a prima facie case that they have participated in a protected activity under the TPPA, the court may then dismiss the action against them, unless the responding party establishes a prima facie case for each essential element of the claim in the legal action.”
The Court continued its analysis by pointing out that one of its prior decisions supported dismissal in this case. 3, 2019), the Courtruled that “language in a complaint cannot substitute for a proper certificate of good faith.” In Dotson v. State , No. E2019-00325-COA-R9-CV (Tenn. internal citations omitted).
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.”
Before the Abbotts’ case went to trial, a federal district courtruled that, based on the trials that had already occurred, DuPont could not challenge several key issues going to its liability – such as whether Travis’s injury was foreseeable. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit upheld that decision.
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).
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).
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.
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.
While plaintiff asserted that he relied on advice from an out-of-state attorney and was acting pro se when the notices were sent, the Courtruled that this did not constitute extraordinary cause. 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.
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.
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 Supreme Courtruled that tort law could not be used to overcome First Amendment protections for free speech or the free press. The Court sought to create “breathing space” for the media by articulating that standard that now applies to both public officials and public figures. Here is the opinion: Project Veritas v.
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.
Because the TPPA “does not specifically limit a party’s right to obtain a voluntary nonsuit or otherwise relate specifically to the effect of a voluntary nonsuit,” the Courtruled that it was “not the type of ‘statute’ contemplated by the exception stated in Rule 41.01.” (internal citation omitted). internal citation omitted).
Although the district courtruled that Sundance had waived its arbitration argument by not making it earlier, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit reversed because of “the absence of a showing of prejudice to Morgan.” United States.
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].”.
Further, dismissal of plaintiffs’ claim for negligent infliction of emotional distress based on the entities disclosing plaintiffs’ names to the media was also reversed, as the Court concluded that defendants did have a duty to plaintiffs and the act of releasing plaintiffs’ names was sufficiently outrageous to sustain the tort claim.
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