enow.com Web Search

Search results

  1. Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
  2. Dillon v. Legg - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dillon_v._Legg

    Dillon v. Legg, 68 Cal. 2d 728 (1968), was a case decided by the Supreme Court of California that established the tort of negligent infliction of emotional distress.To date, it is the most persuasive decision of the most persuasive state supreme court in the United States during the latter half of the 20th century: Dillon has been favorably cited and followed by at least twenty reported out-of ...

  3. Li v. Yellow Cab Co. - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Li_v._Yellow_Cab_Co.

    Li v. Yellow Cab Co., 13 Cal.3d 804, 532 P.2d 1226 (1975), commonly referred to simply as Li, is a California Supreme Court case that judicially embraced comparative negligence in California tort law and rejected strict contributory negligence.

  4. California Tort Claims Act - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Tort_Claims_Act

    The act provides immunity to the State of California and its related entities from being sued. The law immunizes public employees from liability for “instituting or prosecuting any judicial or administrative proceeding” within the scope of their employment, “even if” the employees act “maliciously and without probable cause.” (Cal. Gov. Code, § 821.6)

  5. Medical malpractice in the United States - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medical_malpractice_in_the...

    The researchers, led by Daniel A. Waxman, examined 3.8 million Medicare patient records from hospital emergency departments from 1997 to 2011, comparing care in three states that enacted strict malpractice reform laws about a decade earlier (Georgia, Texas and South Carolina) to care in neighboring states that did not enact such laws.

  6. Negligent infliction of emotional distress - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negligent_infliction_of...

    Legg, the Supreme Court of California was the first court to allow recovery for emotional distress alone – even in the absence of any physical injury to the plaintiff – in the particular situation where the plaintiff simply witnessed the death of a close relative at a distance, and was not within the "zone of danger" where the relative was ...

  7. Prominent doctor accused of pushing pre-teen into puberty ...

    www.aol.com/news/prominent-doctor-accused...

    Breen’s suit claims Olson-Kennedy’s clinic put her on puberty blockers when she was just 12, started her on hormone therapy at 13 and performed a double mastectomy on her at 14.

  8. Alleged California shoplifters shocked to learn stealing now ...

    www.aol.com/alleged-california-shoplifters...

    Police in California released a video of a trio of alleged shoplifters who were shocked to find out that the penalty for their crime had recently changed.. In the viral surveillance video shared ...

  9. Summers v. Tice - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Summers_v._Tice

    Decided November 17, 1948; Full case name: Charles A. Summers v. Howard W. Tice, et al. Citation(s) 33 Cal.2d 80 199 P.2d 1: Holding; When a plaintiff suffers a single indivisible injury, for which the negligence of each of several potential tortfeasors could have been a but-for cause, but only one of which could have actually been the cause, all the potential tortfeasors are jointly and ...