Construction Court Rules Statute Tort 
JURIST
OCTOBER 16, 2023
The US Supreme Court declined to hear an appeal from North Carolina on Monday over the constitutionality of a state law allowing employers to sue employees working as undercover investigators. ” The denial from the Supreme Court offered no explanation or reasoning. The challenged statute, N.C.
Day on Torts
AUGUST 2, 2022
Defendant argued that plaintiffs knew about the alleged conversion in October 2009 and that the claim was therefore time-barred, but the trial court found that the statute of limitations did not begin to run until after the father’s death. On appeal, this ruling was reversed. Code Ann. §
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
SCOTUSBlog
OCTOBER 13, 2022
United States , the 1950 Supreme Court case holding that the United States is not liable under the Federal Tort Claims Act for injuries sustained by members of the armed forces while on active duty and resulting from the negligence of others in the armed forces. United States. Issues : (1) Whether the doctrine of Chevron U.S.A.,
JonathanTurley
OCTOBER 30, 2023
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.
Day on Torts
FEBRUARY 16, 2022
The sidewalk was located in a neighborhood constructed by defendant Goodall Homes. Goodall had contracted with a construction company to build the sidewalk, which was substantially completed in September 2006. internal citation omitted). Code Ann. § This opinion was released 1.5 months after the case was assigned on briefs.
Day on Torts
SEPTEMBER 14, 2022
After discovery, DSS filed a motion for summary judgment, which the trial court granted. The trial court ruled that plaintiff had asserted a premises liability claim, and that “DSS did not owe Plaintiff a duty of care under premises liability.” Plaintiff then amended his complaint to assert claims against DSS as well.
Day on Torts
MARCH 28, 2022
In its analysis, the Court of Appeals first looked at whether plaintiff had shown that defendant had actual or constructive notice of the trough at issue in this case. The Court ruled that this response was insufficient and that the statement was thus admitted, explaining: Rule 56.03 This opinion was released 4.5
Expert insights. Personalized for you.
230 
Let's personalize your content