Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Fraudulent concealment is a common law doctrine that may be invoked to toll a statute of limitations. Under this doctrine, if a defendant has concealed his misconduct, then the limitations period shall start from the point when the plaintiff discovers his claim, or should have discovered it with due diligence. [ 1 ]
Stambovsky v. Ackley, 169 A.D.2d 254 (N.Y. App. Div. 1991), commonly known as the Ghostbusters ruling, was a case in the New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division.The court held that a house, which the owner had previously advertised as haunted by ghosts, was legally haunted for the purpose of an action for rescission brought by a subsequent purchaser of the house.
Punitive damages are entirely unavailable under any circumstances in a few jurisdictions, including Nebraska, Puerto Rico, and Washington. The general rule is that punitive damages cannot be awarded for breach of contract, but if an independent tort is committed in a contractual setting, punitive damages can be awarded for the tort. [25]
The ultimate victim of a real estate Ponzi scheme mastermind, who allegedly defrauded millions of dollars from his clients, could turn out to be his own wife of 38 years. The lesson for homeowners ...
Katko v. Briney, 183 N.W.2d 657 (Iowa 1971), is a court case decided by the Iowa Supreme Court, in which homeowners Edward and Bertha Briney were held liable for battery for injuries caused to trespasser Marvin Katko, who set off a spring gun set as a mantrap in an uninhabited house on their property. [1]
Real estate tycoon Truong My Lan, who was sentenced to death Thursday by a court in Ho Chi Minh city for orchestrating the country’s largest ever financial fraud case, was one of Vietnam's most ...
A Lexington lawyer faces prison time for defrauding his clients of $2 million by concealing information about real estate properties he was encouraging them to invest in.
At trial in 1999, the jury found for Williams and awarded her $821,485.50 in compensatory damages and $79.5 million in punitive damages. [1] At that time, the verdict was the largest against a tobacco company. [1] The trial court found that the compensatory damages exceeded the state cap and the punitive damages were "grossly excessive".