Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
The eggshell skull 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.
In Queensland, the process for having someone declared a vexatious litigant is governed by the Vexatious Proceedings Act 2005, which supplanted an earlier Act. [5] The Act defines a vexatious proceeding to include a proceeding brought without merit or any prospect of success, with the consequence that it is not necessary to prove the existence of any improper motive in order to obtain relief ...
A plaintiff (Π in legal shorthand) is the party who initiates a lawsuit (also known as an action) before a court. By doing so, the plaintiff seeks a legal remedy . If this search is successful, the court will issue judgment in favor of the plaintiff and make the appropriate court order (e.g., an order for damages ).
A person who only appears in the case as a witness is not considered a party. Courts use various terms to identify the role of a particular party in civil litigation , usually identifying the party that brings a lawsuit as the plaintiff , or, in older American cases, the party of the first part ; and the party against whom the case was brought ...
The plaintiff later learnt from a third person that the defendant had changed his mind, but nevertheless tried to accept the offer. The defendant refused to go through the transaction, as he had already sold the property to someone else. The plaintiff brought an action against the defendant for breach of contract.
Perhaps the best known case creating an implied cause of action for constitutional rights is Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). In that case, the United States Supreme Court ruled that an individual whose Fourth Amendment freedom from unreasonable search and seizures had been violated by federal agents could sue for the violation of the Amendment itself, despite the lack ...
Burdick v. United States, 236 U.S. 79 (1915), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that: . A pardoned person must introduce the pardon into court proceedings, otherwise the pardon is considered a private matter, unknown to and unable to be acted on by the court.
Palsgraf v. Long Island Railroad Co., 248 N.Y. 339, 162 N.E. 99 (1928), is a leading case in American tort law on the question of liability to an unforeseeable plaintiff.The case was heard by the New York Court of Appeals, the highest state court in New York; its opinion was written by Chief Judge Benjamin Cardozo, a leading figure in the development of American common law and later a United ...