Remove Court Rules Remove Massachusetts 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

Protesting at Justice’s Homes Should be a Subject of Condemnation, not Prosecution

JonathanTurley

The claim that such protests are acts of intimidation has been before the courts since the 19th century. 92 (1896), for example, the Massachusetts Supreme Court ruled that a labor union could be found guilty of an intentional tort by picketing a business. In Vegelahn v. Guntner, 167 Mass. Coakley in 2014.

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 won’t intervene in dispute over transgender rights and bathrooms

SCOTUSBlog

Grimm , leaves in place a lower-court ruling that found that a Virginia school district violated federal law when it barred students from using the restrooms that align with their gender identities. corporations can be sued for violations of the Alien Tort Statute, the law on which the Iraqi plaintiffs were relying, at all.

article thumbnail

October 2019 Updates to the Climate Case Charts

ClimateChange-ClimateLaw

The federal district court for the District of South Dakota temporarily enjoined enforcement of provisions of a riot boosting statute enacted in South Dakota in 2019 in response to anticipated protests of the Keystone XL pipeline. The court also declined to “create a new tort named abusive litigation.” 1884CV01431 (Mass.

Court 40
article thumbnail

June 2021 Updates to the Climate Case Charts

ClimateChange-ClimateLaw

Supreme Court held that the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals erred when it concluded that its review of the remand order in Baltimore’s climate change case against fossil fuel companies was limited to determining whether the defendants properly removed the case under the federal officer removal statute.

Court 42