Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED; sometimes called the tort of outrage) [1] is a common law tort that allows individuals to recover for severe emotional distress caused by another individual who intentionally or recklessly inflicted emotional distress by behaving in an "extreme and outrageous" way. [2]
Alienation of affection actions in Australia stopped being good law since 1975, with the passing of the Family Law Act 1975. [2] In the new system, outlined by the statute, there exists a fault-less ground of divorce, and that is irretrievable breakdown of a marriage, which is evidenced by 12 months of separation.
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 for anything from a free speech claim to use of excessive force by the police.
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. . . .
Laws vary by state. In Illinois, for example, documented wedding expenses can be recovered, but damages for emotional distress are prohibited, and notice of an intent to sue must be provided within three months of the engagement being dissolved. [15]
In US law, false light is a tort concerning privacy that is similar to the tort of defamation.The privacy laws in the United States include a non-public person's right to protection from publicity that creates an untrue or misleading impression about them.
In tort law, dignitary torts involve non-physical harm, such as damage to reputation. [1] Historically, this category of torts was often covered by the writ of trespass vi et armis . Historically, the primary dignitary torts were battery , assault , and false imprisonment , as each claimed harm to a person's human dignity .
The U.S. Supreme Court has issued numerous rulings regarding mental health and how society treats and regards the mentally ill. While some rulings applied very narrowly, perhaps to only one individual, other cases have had great influence over wide areas.