Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
A common case would be a future threat of harm that would not constitute common law assault but would nevertheless cause emotional harm to the recipient. IIED was created to guard against this kind of emotional abuse, thereby allowing a victim of emotional distress to receive compensation in situations where he or she would otherwise be barred ...
Surveillance abuse is the use of surveillance methods or technology to monitor the activity of an individual or group of individuals in a way which violates the social norms or laws of a society. During the FBI 's COINTELPRO operations, there was widespread surveillance abuse which targeted political dissidents , primarily people from the ...
Cheating on your spouse is not illegal in Texas. It takes more than kissing or touching someone other than your spouse for it to be considered adultery, according to state law. A person must show ...
Case Ruling Right 1962 Robinson v. California: A state cannot make a person's status as an addict a crime; only behaviors can be criminal. 1st 1968 Powell v. Texas: Similarly to Robinson v. California, a state may not criminalize the status of alcoholism itself; the state may only prohibit behaviors. 8th
The emotional distress for which monetary damages may be recovered, however, ought not to be that form of acute emotional distress or the transient emotional reaction to the occasional gruesome or horrible incident to which every person may potentially be exposed in an industrial and sometimes violent society. . . .
In effect, Texas law allows two people to fight and injure each other.” To a certain point. Infliction of serious bodily injury nullifies the exemption, and no weapons are allowed.
Trammel v. United States, 445 U.S. 40 (1980), is a United States Supreme Court case involving the spousal privilege and its application in the law of evidence. In it, the Court held that the witness-spouse alone has a privilege to refuse to testify adversely; the witness may be neither compelled to testify nor foreclosed from testifying.
What sets the Texas case apart, however, is that the women are believed to be the first in the U.S. to sue a state and testify over being denied abortion following newly enacted bans.