Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Pennekamp v. Florida, 328 U.S. 331 (1946), was a Supreme Court case in which the court held that a Florida circuit court which held the Miami Herald in contempt of court for publishing a scathing publication of that court was a violation of the First and Fourteenth Amendment.
In order for such a duty to exist, the injury to the claimant must be "reasonably foreseeable", [4] meaning, for example, that the type of employment must be one in which an unfit employee could cause harm of the type which occurred, [3] and the claimant is the type of person to whom such harm would be a "reasonably foreseeable consequence". [5]
Vicarious liability is a form of a strict, secondary liability that arises under the common law doctrine of agency, respondeat superior, the responsibility of the superior for the acts of their subordinate or, in a broader sense, the responsibility of any third party that had the "right, ability, or duty to control" the activities of a violator.
Contempt of court is essentially seen as a form of disturbance that may impede the functioning of the court. The judge may impose fines and/or jail time upon any person committing contempt of court. The person is usually let out upon an agreement to fulfill the wishes of the court. [6] Civil contempt can involve acts of omission.
Business Insider analyzed a sample of nearly 1,500 federal cases alleging cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment, including every appeals court case with an opinion we ...
Faragher v. City of Boca Raton, 524 U.S. 775 (1998), is a US labor law case of the United States Supreme Court in which the Court identified the circumstances under which an employer may be held liable under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 for the acts of a supervisory employee whose sexual harassment of subordinates has created a hostile work environment amounting to employment ...
The Florida Supreme Court adopted the concept of "pure" comparative negligence, which allows a victim to be compensated for the percentage of harm caused by the at-fault person. The decision of the court in Hoffman v. Jones has been cited in law school textbooks, and now the concept of comparative negligence is the prevailing doctrine.
The Superior Court uses the One Day or One Trial Jury Service program under California Rules of Court, Rule 2.1002. This program allows a person to fulfill jury service when they have: Served on ...