Contract Court Statute Tort 
Day on Torts
MAY 12, 2023
Where the trial court took judicial notice of items from the court case underlying a tort action for invasion of privacy, abuse of process, and intentional infliction of emotional distress, it did not convert the motion to dismiss to a motion for summary judgment and dismissal of the claims based on the statute of limitations was affirmed.
SCOTUSBlog
FEBRUARY 21, 2024
The argument revealed a bench deeply skeptical of the uncertainty maritime insurance contracts would face under a lower-court decision limiting the enforcement of choice-of-law clauses in those contracts. The contract, like most American marine insurance contracts, called for the application of New York law.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
SCOTUSBlog
JUNE 8, 2023
They operate as contracts between the federal government and the recipient of funds; any private person suing to enforce the terms of that contract is a third-party beneficiary, who is generally barred from enforcing contractual obligations. HHC argued that spending clause enactments are unique.
Day on Torts
SEPTEMBER 22, 2021
Although plaintiff labeled his complaint as a tort claim, the gravamen of the complaint was a dispute over “the amount, time and manner of payment of plaintiff’s pension plan benefits.” 4-5-322, which grants exclusive jurisdiction of such reviews to the Chancery Court. The Court also looked at Tenn. Code Ann. § Code Ann. §
Day on Torts
JUNE 15, 2022
Although the State had contracted with a municipality for the maintenance of a state-owned highway, the State still bore “the ultimate responsibility for inspecting and maintaining [the highway],” and “the contract did not absolve the State of potential liability for failing to do so.” The Court rejected this argument.
Day on Torts
SEPTEMBER 9, 2022
Defendant Wolf Tree (Wolf) filed a motion for summary judgment arguing that it owed no duty to plaintiffs because “its contract with SCES explicitly stated that it was not to prune service drops,” because “it had no statutory or common law duty,” and because “Plaintiffs could show no evidence of a negligent or intentional trespass or nuisance.”
At the Lectern
JULY 21, 2022
Resolving what it said were “apparent conflicts in the Court of Appeal” regarding two issues, the Supreme Court today held in Siry Investment, L.P. Superior Court (2021) 64 Cal.App.5th 5th 549, review granted September 1, 2021, S269608.” ” (See here.).
Expert insights. Personalized for you.
59 
Let's personalize your content