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. King appealed the dismissal of his Bivens claims.
The US Supreme Court Monday held by a 7-2 vote in Gallardo v. The court’s ruling says that states can be reimbursed for these expenses if a settlement is made between the injured and liable parties. Justice Sonia Sotomayor dissented from the ruling, with Justice Stephen Breyer joining.
The UK Supreme Court Wednesday held that a person under criminal investigation has a “reasonable expectation of privacy” with regard to information about that investigation prior to being charged. Claiming a tort of misuse of private information, ZXC sought damages and injunctive relief against Bloomberg.
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. The trial court credited the plaintiffs testimony that the brothers had an oral agreement. In Grubb v.
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. Jensen had a gun at the scene and Officer Spece knew of his condition.
The US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit on Friday upheld the dismissal of Alexander Khochinsky’s suit against Poland for seeking his extradition over his possession of a painting allegedly taken from Poland by Nazi troops.
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. In February, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit ruled the statute was an unconstitutional limitation of First Amendment rights.
“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 US Supreme Court Monday declined a petition for a writ of certiorari filed by Black Lives Matter organizer DeRay Mckesson, effectively allowing him to be sued by a Louisiana police officer for negligence. ” Both the district court and the Fifth Circuit looked to NAACP v. The case at bar, DeRay Mckesson v.
A Florida appeals court Wednesday held that the University of South Florida (USF) cannot invoke sovereign immunity to avoid a COVID-19 student fees lawsuit. USF appealed a trial court’s denial of “its motion to dismiss in which it asserted the defense of sovereign immunity.”
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.
The US Supreme Court Monday granted certiorari in nine new cases, including two cases on liability shields for online platforms. Google , the court is asked to consider the scope of Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act , which broadly shields online platforms from liability for content posted by the platforms’ users.
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.
Three of the cases resulted in Supreme Court opinions. One of the three CLAY award Supreme Court decisions is Guardianship of Saul H. is also the only one of the three CLAY award Supreme Court cases to also be among the Daily Journal’s “ Top Verdicts of 2022.” 2022) 13 Cal.5th ” In Saul H. , 2022) 13 Cal.5th
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 Hawai‘i Circuit Court’s decision.
Federal law gives the Environmental Protection Agency, not federal courts, the authority to regulate greenhouse emissions in the United States, a federal appeals courtruled…
Where plaintiff alleging defamation was a public figure but had pleaded in the complaint that defendants were “negligent and/or reckless in ascertaining the truth” of the statements, the trial court incorrectly granted judgment on the pleadings on the defamation and false light invasion of privacy claims. internal citation omitted).
The Supreme Court of Japan may soon weigh in on a growing field of climate litigation in Japan against coal-fired power plants. On May 6, 2022, the Citizens’ Committee on the Kobe Coal-Fired Power Plant filed an appeal to Japan’s Supreme Court in Citizens’ Committee on the Kobe Coal-Fired Power Plant v. By Yumeno Grace Nishikawa, LLM*.
In my torts class, we discuss sports torts and defenses. Last week, a three-justice panel of the Illinois First District Appellate Court in Chicago ruled against MLB and the Cubs in seeking to enforce the boilerplate language on arbitration printed on the back of baseball tickets. Now the Appellate court has agreed.
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. Continue reading
The Tennessee Supreme Court reviews very few cases in a given year. 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. In the same fiscal year, the Court issued opinions in 63 cases. Link to Court of Appeals Opinions: [link].
” 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. We conclude that the court of appeals got it right.
ten years ago—at least in part due to longstanding common law rules on champerty, maintenance, [3] and patent law’s relative high risk—today third-party litigation funding (TPLF) [4] undergirds about 30% of all patent litigation, by conservative estimates. [5] Patent assertion finance today is a multibillion-dollar business. [2]
Share The Supreme Court on Monday morning added two additional hours of argument, in cases involving federal funding of health care services for Native Americans and the Armed Career Criminal Act, to its docket for the 2023-24 term. The court designated six cases as bellwether cases.
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. §
Plaintiff filed his HCLA complaint against the non-State employees in circuit court, and he filed his complaint against the State with the Division of Claims and Risk Management. On appeal, that ruling was reversed. The Court of Appeals began by looking at Tenn. Code Ann. § Landry in the certificate, it fails. In Dotson v.
Defendants Goodall and the City both filed motions for summary judgment, which the trial court granted, and the Court of Appeals affirmed. Regarding the claims against Goodall, the trial court had found in part that the claim was barred by the applicable statute of repose found in Tenn. . § internal citation omitted).
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.
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. Code Ann. § 28-3-105.) internal citation omitted).
The trial court applied the statutory non-economic damages cap to reduce the award to $1,529,777, which the Court of Appeals affirmed in a lengthy opinion. The Court pointed out that plaintiff had three lay witnesses and two expert witnesses testify as to causation. The Court of Appeals rejected both arguments.
I would be really curious to hear whether these or similar cases are also moving courts in other jurisdictions and how courts deal with them. Restitution of Money lost in Illegal Gambling Cases involving the recovery of money lost to illegal online gambling are being heard in courts across Germany and probably across Europe.
Plaintiff responded by arguing that defendant had waived this argument and that there was material evidence to support the verdict, and the Court of Appeals agreed on both points. First, the Court of Appeals found that defendant waived his argument that the evidence supporting fraud was not legally sufficient.
United States considers constitutional limits to military courts’ jurisdiction over retired servicemembers. Begani was tried and convicted by court-martial. In his petition, Begani asks the Supreme Court to review this decision and to limit military jurisdiction over retirees. In 2011’s AT&T Mobility LLC v. Sundance, Inc.
The trial court eventually granted the motion for summary judgment, agreeing that defendant owed no duty here, and the Court of Appeals affirmed. The Court began its negligence analysis by considering whether defendant owed a duty under the contract.
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.
By a vote of 5-4, the justices held that only a plaintiff concretely harmed by a defendant’s violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) has Article III standing to seek damages against that private defendant in federal court. The District Courtruled that all class members had Article III standing on each of the three statutory claims.
The trial court denied the motion to dismiss, holding that “Plaintiffs’ claims for medical battery and intentional misrepresentation were based on false statements the Defendants made to [plaintiff] before they established a doctor-patient relationship,” and the Court of Appeals affirmed this “temporal analysis” on interlocutory appeal.
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.
Where plaintiff filed a notice of voluntary dismissal in his defamation case before defendants filed their petition to dismiss under the TPPA, the trial court erred by granting defendants’ petition for dismissal and awarding them attorneys’ fees and sanctions after plaintiff’s nonsuit. These rulings were reversed and vacated on appeal.
The trial court agreed, ultimately dismissing the complaint with prejudice, and the Court of Appeals affirmed. Plaintiff first argued that defendant waived its pre-suit notice argument “by failing to include a Rule 12.02 defense it is answer, by failing to file a Rule 12.02 Code Ann. § internal citations omitted).
Where plaintiff alleged that defendant attorney fraudulently charged a higher hourly rate than what was agreed upon, the trial court should have engaged in a three-factor analysis to determine whether the written fee agreement could be used to defeat the fraud claim. In Vazeen v. M2019-01395-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. internal citation omitted).
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