enow.com Web Search

Search results

  1. Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
  2. Tarasoff v. Regents of the University of California - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tarasoff_v._Regents_of_the...

    Mosk. Dissent. Clark, joined by McComb. Tarasoff v. Regents of the University of California, 17 Cal. 3d 425, 551 P.2d 334, 131 Cal. Rptr. 14 (Cal. 1976), was a case in which the Supreme Court of California held that mental health professionals have a duty to protect individuals who are being threatened with bodily harm by a patient.

  3. Duty to warn - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duty_to_warn

    Duty to warn is embedded in the historical context of two rulings (1974 and 1976) of the California Supreme Court in the case of Tarasoff v. Regents of the University of California. [15] [page needed] [16] The court held that mental health professionals have a duty to protect individuals who are being threatened with bodily harm by a patient ...

  4. Feres v. United States - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feres_v._United_States

    Feres v. United States, 340 U.S. 135 (1950), combined three pending federal cases for a hearing in certiorari in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that the United States is not liable under the Federal Tort Claims Act for injuries to members of the armed forces sustained while on active duty and not on furlough and resulting from the negligence of others in the armed forces. [1]

  5. Supreme Court of California - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme_Court_of_California

    The Supreme Court of California is the highest and final court of appeals in the courts of the U.S. state of California. It is headquartered in San Francisco at the Earl Warren Building, [ 1 ] but it regularly holds sessions in Los Angeles and Sacramento. [ 2 ] Its decisions are binding on all other California state courts. [ 3 ]

  6. Giglio v. United States - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giglio_v._United_States

    Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150 (1972), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that the prosecution's failure to inform the jury that a witness had been promised not to be prosecuted in exchange for his testimony was a failure to fulfill the duty to present all material evidence to the jury, and constituted a violation of due process, requiring a new trial. [1]

  7. Dereliction of duty in American law - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dereliction_of_duty_in...

    Dereliction of duty is a specific offense under United States Code Title 10, Section 892, Article 92 and applies to all branches of the US military. A service member who is derelict has willfully refused to perform his duties (or follow a given order) or has incapacitated himself in such a way that he cannot perform his duties.

  8. Felix Frankfurter - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Felix_Frankfurter

    Rank. Major. Felix Frankfurter (November 15, 1882 – February 22, 1965) was an Austrian-born American jurist who served as an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States from 1939 until 1962, during which he was an advocate of judicial restraint. Frankfurter was born in Vienna, immigrating to New York City at the age of 12.

  9. Snyder v. Phelps - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snyder_v._Phelps

    Snyder v. Phelps, 562 U.S. 443 (2011), is a landmark decision by the Supreme Court of the United States in which the Court held that speech made in a public place on a matter of public concern cannot be the basis of liability for a tort of emotional distress, even if the speech is viewed as offensive or outrageous.