Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
McDonald's coffee case: An American court case that became a cause célèbre for advocates of tort reform. A 79-year-old woman received third degree burns from spilled coffee purchased from the restaurant chain and sued to recover her costs.
Once again, Cook County courts have been named a Judicial Hellhole by the American Tort Reform Association (ATRA), which is another stark reminder of how dire the situation has become. For small ...
Although federal courts often hear tort cases arising out of common law or state statutes, there are relatively few tort claims that arise exclusively as a result of federal law. The most common federal tort claim is the 42 U.S.C. § 1983 remedy for violation of one's civil rights under color of federal or state law, which can be used to sue ...
This case featured the first example of judicial review by the Supreme Court. Ware v. Hylton, 3 U.S. 199 (1796) A section of the Treaty of Paris supersedes an otherwise valid Virginia statute under the Supremacy Clause. This case featured the first example of judicial nullification of a state law. Fletcher v.
“The law as to fair comment, so far as is material to the present case, stands as follows: In the first place, comment in order to be justifiable as fair comment must appear as comment and must not be so mixed up with the facts that the reader cannot distinguish between what is report and what is comment: see Andrews v.
You may improve this article, discuss the issue on the talk page, or create a new article, as appropriate. ( December 2010 ) ( Learn how and when to remove this message ) A duty to warn is a concept that arises in the law of torts in a number of circumstances, indicating that a party will be held liable for injuries caused to another, where the ...
There is some overlap between criminal law and tort. For example, in English law an assault is both a crime and a tort (a form of trespass to the person). A tort allows a person to obtain a remedy that serves their own purposes (for example, the payment of damages or the obtaining of injunctive relief). Criminal actions on the other hand are ...
The eggshell rule (also thin skull rule, papier-mâché-plaintiff rule, or talem qualem rule) [1] is a well-established legal doctrine in common law, used in some tort law systems, [2] with a similar doctrine applicable to criminal law. The rule states that, in a tort case, the unexpected frailty of the injured person is not a valid defense to ...