Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
The use of or intermeddling (a term usually applicable to estate law) with the property of another has often been held to constitute a conversion, whether the act is done by one who had no authority to use the property, or by one who has authority to use the property but uses it in an unauthorized way. Any unjustified exercise of dominion over ...
In some jurisdictions, malicious prosecution is reserved for the wrongful initiation of criminal proceedings, while malicious use of process refers to the wrongful initiation of civil proceedings. Alienation of affections – Brought by a spouse against a third party, whom the spouse believes has interfered with his or her marriage. There is no ...
Pennsylvania Coal Co. v. Mahon, 260 U.S. 393 (1922), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that whether a regulatory act constitutes a taking requiring compensation depends on the extent of diminution in the value of the property.
Trespass to land is today the tort most commonly associated with the term trespass; it takes the form of "wrongful interference with one's possessory rights in [real] property". [11] [12] Generally, it is not necessary to prove harm to a possessor's legally protected interest; liability for unintentional trespass varies by jurisdiction.
A tort of negligent interference occurs when one party's negligence damages the contractual or business relationship between others, causing economic harm, such as by blocking a waterway or causing a blackout that prevents the utility company from being able to uphold its existing contracts with consumers.
In recent years, the law of premises liability has evolved to include cases where a person is injured on the premises of another by a third person's wrongful act, such as an assault. These cases are sometimes referred to as "third party premises liability" cases and they represent a highly complex and dynamic area of tort law.
The "polestar" of regulatory takings jurisprudence is Penn Central Transp. Co. v.New York City (1973). [3] In Penn Central, the Court denied a takings claim brought by the owner of Grand Central Terminal following refusal of the New York City Landmarks Preservation Commission to approve plans for construction of 50-story office building over Grand Central Terminal.
Michael A. Smyth v. The Pillsbury Company, 914 F. Supp. 97 (E.D. Pa. 1996) was decided on January 18, 1996, in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. [1] Michael A. Smyth was a regional operations manager at the Pillsbury Company. Smyth had a company email account that he was able to access from work and home.