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 Supreme Court on Tuesday morning was sympathetic to the victims of a wrong house raid in 2017, with several justices expressing surprise at the federal governments efforts to contend that the actions of FBI agents were shielded from liability because their acts were discretionary. Representing the federal government, Assistant to the U.S.
Cisco rehearing denial allows a new invocation of the Alien TortStatute to proceed, which could capture the U.S. companies doing business with foreign governments, say attorneys at Ropes & Gray. The Ninth Circuit's Doe v. Supreme Court's attention, and has potentially dramatic consequences for U.S.
The plaintiffs relied on the Alien TortStatute, an 18th-century law that permits foreigners to bring lawsuits in U.S. courts to apply the Alien TortStatute outside the United States, where U.S. courts for serious violations of international law. laws normally do not apply. That is a good thing,” Gorsuch reasoned.
These statutes could impose liability on mCDR project proponents who violate the laws by failing to comply with the relevant statutory requirements. Such violations could result in both civil and criminal penalties, with some statutes imposing fines for each day a violation continues. judge-made) law. judge-made) law.
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.
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 Court next turned to whether summary judgment was appropriate under the Recreational Use Statutes.
The federal government depends on the service of thousands of Administrative Law Judges (ALJs), most of whom are appointed or selected by the head of an agency or internal agency boards.
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.
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. The federal government (which administers the Medicaid program) strongly supports that position.
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.
Konan to determine whether the Federal Tort Claims Act provision exempting claims arising from the loss or miscarriage of letters or postal matter extends to claims that the Post Office deliberately refused to deliver mail to an address. The Supreme Court made short work of two of last weeks first-time relists. Relisted after the Apr.
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.” This case is fairly fact specific, but it is a reminder that a plaintiff cannot change the gravamen of a complaint simply by labeling it as a tort case.
Bankruptcy and its special powers are being used to compensate for what some court filings call the “ failure ” of tort litigation to efficiently and fully resolve all pending claims. Although the statute formally allows for only pre-trial consolidation, 99% of cases consolidated into MDL settle. Trustee argues is different.
Gorgi Talevski’s family brought a Section 1983 action against Valparaiso Care and Rehabilitation, a government nursing facility owned by Health and Hospital Corp. Jackson explained that two well-established principles prompted the court to reject HHC’s invitation to reimagine the statute and precedent.
law named the Alien TortStatute that allows non-U.S. CACI had claimed it was protected under derivative sovereign immunity, a legal doctrine that shields government contractors from liability under certain circumstances. The Supreme Court in 2013 narrowed the Alien TortStatute to cover conduct that occurred in the U.S.
It will also add to the court’s precedent on the interaction between the law of equity and the technicalities of federal statutes. Partly because of the circuit split and partly because of the statute’s lack of clarity, this could be a close case. Department of Veterans Affairs. How can the presumption be rebutted?
A federal court in California convicted Hansen of multiple counts of fraud, as well as convincing two of his customers to overstay their visas and participate in his adoption program in violation of the encourage-or-induce statute. Hansen appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit. In United States v.
The Court of Appeals explained that although the TPPA is a relatively new statute, case law has established “two general conclusions” regarding the proper procedure when a motion to dismiss is filed thereunder. The TPPA, a relatively new statute, continues to be more defined as additional cases are litigated and appealed thereunder.
Of course, this is probably why states around the country have enacted things like Tort Claims Acts which are written in favor of government entities and whose sole purpose is to limit liability and protect government employees and the departments they work for.
The case involves the Locomotive Inspection Act , a federal statute that requires railroads to regularly inspect and implement safety measures for their locomotives. Share The Supreme Court heard argument on Monday in LeDure v. Union Pacific Railroad Company. Scott Ballenger arguing for Union Pacific Railroad.
After looking to the contract and the statutes at issue here, the Court of Appeals reasoned: Having closely reviewed the State’s contract with the City of Kingsport, we find nothing in the contract or in §§ 54-5-201 and -203 that authorizes the State to delegate its responsibilities under § 9-8-307(a)(1)(I). This opinion was released 1.5
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.
Plaintiff initially sued the Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County (Metro) for damage to his property, which ended in summary judgment for Metro based on sovereign immunity. Note: Chapter 82, Section 1 of Day on Torts: Leading Cases in Tennessee Tort Law has been updated to include this decision.
The parties disputed the enforcement of that contract because application of Pennsylvania law (favored by the customer Raiders Retreat Realty) would expose the insurer (Great Lakes Insurance) to a tort action not available under New York law.
Because the TPPA is a relatively new statute, it has not been interpreted in many opinions. Note: Chapter 28, Sections 12 and 14 of Day on Torts: Leading Cases in Tennessee Tort Law has been updated to include this decision. This ruling was affirmed in part and reversed in part on appeal. The TPPA, Tenn. Code Ann. §
Thus, the general rule of the place of tort applies equally to corporations and private individuals. [1] First , internal affairs of corporations tend to be excluded by the various international statutes aiming to harmonise the applicable law rules. [3] These are the situations involving claims between the corporate actors (i.e.
The trial court granted summary judgment under this statute, finding that plaintiff could not prove liability due to these exceptions, and review of this issue was waived on appeal. The statute at the core of the appeal was Tenn. internal citation omitted). Code Ann. § This opinion was released 4.5
Note: Chapter 40, Section 1; Chapter 42, Section 2; Chapter 46, Section 2; and Chapter 47, Sections 1 and 2 of Day on Torts: Leading Cases in Tennessee Tort Law has been updated to include this decision. Click on the link to see the book’s Table of Contents.
More generally, the judgment provides a useful analysis of the interrelationship between statutory interpretation and choice of law, and lends weight to the proposition that product liability is properly governed by the law of the place of supply (or injury). Statutory interpretation, and characterisation, are necessarily intertwined.
Note: Chapter 98, Section 4 of Day on Torts: Leading Cases in Tennessee Tort Law has been updated to include this decision. Day on Torts: Leading Cases in Tennessee Tort Law contains summaries of leading cases on over 500 topics and citations to more than 1500 additional cases.
And that has implications for tort law, contract law, and property law, because it is less clear in many ways how basic legal principles such as negligence, foreseeability, force majeure, and reasonableness will apply to particular problems. What does it mean to act reasonably in a changing climate? John Kerry, then U.S.
Further, the trial court found that plaintiff had satisfied the elements of fraudulent concealment such that the three-year statute of limitations was tolled and the case was not time-barred. The Court next analyzed defendant’s claim that the conversion case was barred by the statute of limitations. In Pomeroy v. McGinnis , No.
The decisions on these motions could influence pending and future litigation in the same vein – lawsuits seeking damages, compensation or abatement funds to alleviate the costs borne by local governments to adapt to climate change impacts. At the moment, it’s pretty messy out there.
The Court of Appeal held that misuse of private information and contravention of the statutory data protection requirements was a tort and therefore, if damage had been sustained within England, the English courts had jurisdiction and service to the USA (California) was allowed.
WTMG is a governmental entity under the definitions in the Governmental Tort Liability Act. The GTLA defines government employees in Tenn. When plaintiffs filed their complaint, they named only the doctor as a defendant. 29-20-310(b)). Code Ann. §
The Supreme Court ruled that tort law could not be used to overcome First Amendment protections for free speech or the free press. Congress recognized the threat that tort-based lawsuits pose to freedom of speech in the new and burgeoning Internet medium. 47 U.S.C. § The purpose of this statutory immunity is not difficult to discern.
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.
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.
It argues that a tort lawsuit brought by foreign victims of climate change against local greenhouse gas emitters could overcome jurisdictional obstacles, notably the local action rule, and proceed in Canada. It is thought to be a significant jurisdictional obstacle in transboundary environmental disputes involving foreign land.
Contractual” duties of care corresponding with negligence in tort, on the other hand, fall within the scope of the Regulation Rome II. The article provides criteria to determine whether the close connection rule in Article 4(3) Regulation Rome II can lead to the application of the law governing the contract. found differently.
The crux of the ruling is the type of tort that the Bonga spill represents under Nigerian law, applicable to that case (on applicable law, see Jalla & Anor v Shell International Trading and Shipping Company Ltd & Anor [2023] EWHC 424 (TCC), at [348] ff.). The case at hand is an appeal on a part of an earlier rulings.
Responding to questions asked by the Ninth Circuit about California law, the court’s unanimous opinion by Justice Carol Corrigan precludes an action alleging a construction worker’s wife contracted COVID from her husband due to his employer’s failure to abide by government health orders at the beginning of the pandemic.
Supreme Court last summer, the case is now before the Ninth Circuit for decision of the legal question that is likely to be decisive: which law governs? The district court and the court of appeals have so far framed the issue as a binary choice: the governing law on the merits is either that of Spain or that of California.
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