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 on Thursday reversed a ruling that allowed several individuals to sue food corporations Nestlé USA and Cargill over child slavery claims, limiting corporate liability under the Alien TortStatute. The case which the Supreme Court decided was Nestlé USA, Inc. Doe I, consolidated with Cargill, Inc.
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 challenged statute, N.C. The court stated that the law substantially “burden[ed] newsgathering and publishing activities.”
As there are no laws in Mali to aid the plaintiffs in seeking damages or civil remedies against foreign exporters, they brought their claims under US law, specifically the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act and the Alien TortsStatute. The defendant companies are Barry Callebaut, Cargill, Hershey, Mars, Mondel?z,
Supreme Court clarified when plaintiffs can seek redress in U.S. courts for human rights abuses that occur overseas. By a vote of 8-1, the Court held that to plead facts sufficient to support a domestic application of the Alien TortStatute, 28 U.S.C. Supreme Court’s Decision. The Supreme Court reversed.
The statute takes a different approach, though, when a third party caused the injury and so is legally responsible to pay the beneficiary’s expenses. In that case, the state is supposed to “seek reimbursement” from the third party; the statute (in 42 U.S.C.
Share The Supreme Court on Monday resolved a narrow question of statutory interpretation under the Medicaid Act and expanded the ability of states to recoup health care costs from accident victims. Florida’s statute includes a formula that allocates $300,000 to past and future medical expenses. The case, Gallardo v.
Cisco rehearing denial allows a new invocation of the Alien TortStatute to proceed, which could capture the U.S. Supreme Court's attention, and has potentially dramatic consequences for U.S. The Ninth Circuit's Doe v. companies doing business with foreign governments, say attorneys at Ropes & Gray.
A third complaint filed more than one year after dismissal of the original complaint did not fall within the savings statute and was time barred. 23, 2024), plaintiff filed a complaint alleging several tort claims, including assault, battery, and trespass. Defendant filed a motion to dismiss based on the statute of limitations.
A third complaint filed more than one year after dismissal of the original complaint did not fall within the savings statute and was time barred. 23, 2024), plaintiff filed a complaint alleging several tort claims, including assault, battery, and trespass. Defendant filed a motion to dismiss based on the statute of limitations.
Share The Supreme Court on Thursday threw out a lawsuit alleging that two U.S.-based The plaintiffs relied on the Alien TortStatute, an 18th-century law that permits foreigners to bring lawsuits in U.S. courts for serious violations of international law. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit reinstated it.
Today the Supreme Court issued its decision in Nestlé USA, Inc. The plaintiffs brought claims under the Alien TortStatute (ATS) against two American companies—Nestlé USA and Cargill—that “purchase, process, and sell cocoa. Doe (covered earlier here). They did.
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. The trial court denied the motion and ultimately found for plaintiff. In Lowery v. Code Ann. §
Where plaintiff’s claims against defendant county were based on intentional torts, a one-year statute of limitations applied. Plaintiff’s initial complaint listed several intentional torts, but his amended complaint removed the referral to any specific torts and instead alleged liability more generally. In Anderson v.
SUPREME COURT. The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit invalidated their appointments and thereby jeopardized hundreds of pending patent claim judgments. What follows is a brief account of some of the notable U.S. environmental and administrative law cases recently decided. Continue Reading ›.
Where plaintiff filed a products liability claim based on a hip replacement device she had received, but her hip replacement occurred more than ten years before her suit was filed, dismissal based on the statute of repose was affirmed. The statute of repose for products liability cases is a hard line with very limited exceptions.
Where defendant governmental entity did not own the park where plaintiff was injured, and plaintiff was attending a concert in the park when she fell, summary judgment based on both the GTLA and Recreational Use Statute was affirmed. The trial court agreed, granting the motion, and summary judgment was affirmed on appeal. In Costner v.
Where the trial court took judicial notice of items from the court case underlying a tort action for invasion of privacy, abuse of process, and intentional infliction of emotional distress, it did not convert the motion to dismiss to a motion for summary judgment and dismissal of the claims based on the statute of limitations was affirmed.
Jackson explained that two well-established principles prompted the court to reject HHC’s invitation to reimagine the statute and precedent. The court then applied its long-standing two-step analysis to conclude that FNHRA is enforceable through Section 1983. First, FNHRA “unambiguously” confers individual federal rights.
First, the Claims Commissioner ruled that the claim was “barred by § 70-7-102(a) of Tennessee’s Recreational Use Statute, which protects landowners, including the State of Tennessee, from responsibility for injury to recreational visitors.” In Victory v. State , No. M2020-01610-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. internal citation omitted).
The lawsuit was filed in 2008 under the Alien TortStatute , which allows foreign citizens to bring lawsuits in US federal courts for serious violations of international law. CACI contended that the plaintiffs had their day in court and that the evidence did not support a verdict against CACI.
Supreme Court on Monday declined to hear the appeal of CACI International Inc., CACI was appealing a lower court decision that favored the Iraqi men in 2019. law named the Alien TortStatute that allows non-U.S. The Supreme Court in 2013 narrowed the Alien TortStatute to cover conduct that occurred in the U.S.
Share Purdue Pharma’s bankruptcy deal, which will reach the Supreme Court for oral argument on Monday , is just one of many examples of recent unorthodox civil procedure maneuvers in public harms litigation. But can bankruptcy court solve a public health crisis? The opioid MDL came under scrutiny, including by the U.S.
Although plaintiff labeled his complaint as a tort claim, the gravamen of the complaint was a dispute over “the amount, time and manner of payment of plaintiff’s pension plan benefits.” 4-5-322, which grants exclusive jurisdiction of such reviews to the Chancery Court. The Court also looked at Tenn. Code Ann. § Code Ann. §
Marstiller presents a straightforward question of statutory interpretation, addressing whether a state Medicaid program can take funds a Medicaid beneficiary receives in a tort settlement from a third party that injured the beneficiary. This case will determine how those provisions apply specifically to future medical expenses.
Resolving what it said were “apparent conflicts in the Court of Appeal” regarding two issues, the Supreme Court today held in Siry Investment, L.P. Superior Court (2021) 64 Cal.App.5th 5th 549, review granted September 1, 2021, S269608.” ” (See here.).
The Relist Watch column examines cert petitions that the Supreme Court has relisted for its upcoming conference. The Supreme Court made short work of two of last weeks first-time relists. The court granted review in United States Postal Service v. The district court agreed and dismissed Whole Foods with prejudice.
Where the trial court did not provide sufficient reasoning in support of its dismissal of plaintiffs’ various HCLA and informed consent claims, summary judgment for defendants was vacated. Defendant filed a motion to dismiss, asserting that plaintiff failed to file her complaint within the three-year statute of repose. Gibson , No.
The Supreme Court ruled 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.
Where plaintiff had filed complaints with the Board of Professional Responsibility (BPR) complaining of the same allegations that allegedly supported her legal malpractice claim, and those BPR complaints were filed more than one year before the legal malpractice suit was filed, summary judgment based on the statute of limitations was affirmed.
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. ,
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).
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 trial court denied that motion and entered an award for the former employee on July 7, 2017. After this award was entered, County Attorney Robert Husker “began reviewing the court file and investigating the decisions made by [defendant attorney] during the trial.” On appeal, dismissal was affirmed.
The trial court denied the TPPA motion to dismiss, and plaintiffs appealed this denial, which was vacated on appeal due to the trial court’s use of the wrong analysis. The Court of Appeals quoted Tenn. internal citations omitted). 20-17-105(a)(b); additional citation omitted). internal citation omitted).
Commissioner of Internal Revenue will consider whether “equitable tolling” – which allows courts to excuse missed deadlines in some circumstances – is available for a statutory federal income tax deadline. Courts of Appeals for the 8th and 9th Circuits concluding that tolling is not available, and the U.S. The deadline was Aug.
After hearing the evidence, the trial court set a boundary line for the disputed property and denied plaintiffs’ claim for adverse possession of the disputed area. On appeal, dismissal of the trespass claim was vacated due to the trial court applying the wrong intent standard to the tort of trespass. internal citation omitted).
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. And in Erlinger v.
The trial court granted defendant’s motion to dismiss, ruling that the complaint did not establish that the “retaking of the automobile was in defiance of the true owner’s rights,” and the Court of Appeals affirmed. Note: Chapter 22 of Day on Torts: Leading Cases in Tennessee Tort Law has been updated to include this decision.
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. In Adamson v. Grove , No. internal citation omitted).
The argument revealed a bench deeply skeptical of the uncertainty maritime insurance contracts would face under a lower-court decision limiting the enforcement of choice-of-law clauses in those contracts. Most important, though, are two relatively recent decisions enforcing maritime forum-selection clauses, The Bremen v. Zapata Off-Shore Co.
Where plaintiff wife failed to give written notice of her loss of consortium claim against the State of Tennessee to the Division of Claims and Risk Management, dismissal of her claim was affirmed, despite the fact that her complaint was filed with the Claims Commission within the statute of limitations. In Kampmeyer v. State , No.
Defendant filed a motion to dismiss the defamation action, which the trial court granted based on the absolute litigation privilege, and the Court of Appeals affirmed. The Court quickly concluded that this criteria was met, as defendant’s allegation that plaintiffs’ marriage was bigamous was the very basis of his complaint.
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. §
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.
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