Remove 2023 Remove Court Rules Remove Statute Remove Tort
article thumbnail

Spooky Torts: The 2023 List of Litigation Horrors

JonathanTurley

Here is my annual list of Halloween torts and crimes. Halloween has everything for a torts-filled holiday: battery, trespass, defamation, nuisance, product liability and more. However, my students and I often discuss the remarkably wide range of torts that comes with All Hallow’s Eve. In another June 2023 decision in Munoz v.

Tort 43
article thumbnail

Spooky Torts: Tykes and Trial Lawyers Gather for All Hallow’s Eve

JonathanTurley

The result is a wicked brew of negligence, product defects, intentional torts, and every other tort and crime known above the netherworld. So without further ado, here are this year’s spookiest of torts. Both Kelly and Rando sued for torts ranging from assault to intentional infliction of emotional distress.

Tort 41
Insiders

Sign Up for our Newsletter

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

Trending Sources

article thumbnail

Justices take up Native health care funding cases and a dispute over sentencing guide

SCOTUSBlog

Share The Supreme Court on Monday morning added two additional hours of argument, in cases involving federal funding of health care services for Native Americans and the Armed Career Criminal Act, to its docket for the 2023-24 term. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit upheld that decision. And in Erlinger v.

article thumbnail

UK Supreme Court in Jalla v Shell: the claim in Bonga spill is time barred

Conflict of Laws

The UK Supreme Court ruled that the cause of action in the aftermath of the 2011 Bonga offshore oil spill accrued at the moment when the oil reached the shore. The relevant facts are summarized by the UK Supreme Court as follows at [6] and [7]: (…) The Bonga oil field is located approximately 120 km off the coast of Nigeria.

article thumbnail

The long tentacles of the Helms-Burton Act in Europe (III)

Conflict of Laws

Besides, Spanish courts had jurisdiction because Spain was the place of the domicile of the defendant and the claim was one of unjust enrichment – i.e. a claim in tort –, not one whose subject matter was the existence or scope of a right in rem over a real estate asset. Arguably, it was not necessary to do so.