Remove Mississippi Remove Statute Remove Tort
article thumbnail

No civil liability for sharing truthful information about matter of public concern.

Day on Torts

In the context of countering plaintiffs’ assertion that the death was a homicide, defendant shared autopsy photographs of the son as well as some of his text messages, both of which were public records released by the Mississippi Attorney General’s Office. Summary judgment was therefore affirmed.

Tort 59
article thumbnail

Petitions of the week: Four petitions that test the limits on lawsuits against the government

SCOTUSBlog

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. Webster County, Mississippi. The county asks the justices to review and reverse this decision. In 1950’s Feres v. Robinson v.

Insiders

Sign Up for our Newsletter

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

article thumbnail

Justices turn down cadet’s attempt to sue government over sexual assault

SCOTUSBlog

The justices also called for the federal government’s views in two cases, but they once again did not act on a closely watched challenge to a Mississippi law that would generally bar abortions after the 15th week of pregnancy. United States , one of the cases that they considered at their private conference last week. E.M.D.H. ,

article thumbnail

Mopping up final business with 14 new relists

SCOTUSBlog

20-219 , asks whether the compensatory damages available under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act and the statutes that incorporate its remedies, such as the Rehabilitation Act and the Affordable Care Act , include compensation for emotional distress. Then there is a case on the court’s original docket , Mississippi v. Mississippi v.

article thumbnail

February 2020 Updates to the Climate Case Charts

ClimateChange-ClimateLaw

The defendants filed their reply brief on January 22, 2020, reiterating their arguments that the Tenth Circuit should review the entire remand order, not just the district court’s determination that removal was not proper under the federal-officer removal statute, and that there were multiple valid grounds for removal. City of Oakland v.