Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Hedonic damages is a legal term that first emerged in 1985 in the research of Stan V. Smith, who was a PhD student in economics at the University of Chicago. The term refers to damages for loss of enjoyment of life, the intangible value of life, as distinct from the human capital value or lost earnings value.
DaimlerChrysler Corp. v. Cuno: 2006: Held that state taxpayers do not have standing to challenge to state tax laws in federal court. 9–0 Massachusetts v. EPA: 2007: States have standing to sue the EPA to enforce their views of federal law, in this case, the view that carbon dioxide was an air pollutant under the Clean Air Act. Cited Georgia v.
Williams et al. v. State of North Carolina: 317 U.S. 287 (1942) Divorce and marriage recognition between states Parker v. Brown: 317 U.S. 341 (1943) Parker immunity doctrine in United States antitrust law: Clearfield Trust Co. v. United States: 318 U.S. 363 (1943) Negotiable instruments, Federal common law: Largent v. State of Texas: 318 U.S ...
Smith v. Arizona, 602 U.S. 779 (2024), is a decision of the Supreme Court of the United States case in which the court held that when an expert conveys an absent analyst's statements in support of the expert's opinion, and the statements provide that support only if true, then the statements come into evidence for their truth.
Stan V. Smith is an American economist credited with coining the term and creating the arguments behind the hedonic damages theory, which entered mainstream legal economics in the 1985 court case Sherrod v. Berry. [1] He often presents, publishes, and speaks on economics. [2]
Hustler Magazine, Inc. v. Falwell, 485 U.S. 46 (1988), is a landmark decision by the Supreme Court of the United States in which the Court held that parodies of public figures, even those intending to cause emotional distress, are protected by the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution.
A South Carolina judge on Thursday revoked bond for Curtis “Eddie” Smith, a distant cousin and alleged co-conspirator of Alex Murdaugh’s, sending Smith back to jail indefinitely.. But it was ...
In a case involving a state law prohibiting corporate expenditures that support or oppose a political candidate or party, the Supreme Court reversed the Montana Supreme Court's 2011 holding in Western Tradition Partnership, Inc. v. Attorney General of Montana that the law did not violate the First Amendment.