(Note that this case is about immunity when Internet platforms provide access to material, not the separate question about immunity when Internet platforms block access to material.)
The Yale Law School DinnerPartyGate lawsuit (Stubbs v. Gerken) can go forward on an interference with prospective business relationships claim, based in large part on the law school's alleged interference with plaintiffs' clerkship opportunities, though the other claims are dismissed.
Five Circuits have considered, and rejected, fossil fuel efforts to get state-law tort and nuisance claims removed to federal court. Will their luck change in the Supreme Court?
Is negligently providing information to a dangerous person comparable to negligently entrusting a gun to a dangerous person (assuming a reasonable person would have realized the person was dangerous)?
Under N.Y. law, the court holds, a jury could find that the alleged touching could qualify as touching of "intimate parts," based on its context.
No Heckler's Veto: Court Reverses $1.5M Nuisance Verdict Against Abortion Clinic, Which Was Chiefly Based on Actions of Protesters and Arsonists
A new decision from the Georgia Court of Appeals.
Wrongly Ejecting Teenager from Sports Club for Sexual Misconduct May Be Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress,
if it's done without adequate investigation, and as a means of retaliating against the teenager's parent.
An interesting discussion of the question—with a vivid example—in a South Carolina case.
California Court Refuses to Apply Iranian Law, in Part Because It Reflects Religious Ideology Rather Than Economic Interest
Plaintiff had been an Iranian citizen exposed to asbestos in Iran, from 1959 to 1979; he then moved to California (after defendants' negligent conduct took place), and developed mesothelioma and died.
The interesting legal issue is whether the parents converted his property "for [their] own use," thus entitling him to three times the actual damages under Michigan law.
Heckler's Veto: $1.5 Million Nuisance Verdict Against Abortion Clinic, Chiefly Based on Actions of Protesters and Arsonists
The same logic could apply when churches, synagogues, mosques, bookstores, gun stores, fur stores, and similar places are targeted by their enemies. We've filed an amicus brief before the Georgia Court of Appeals, in support of getting the verdict reversed.
Supreme Court Sends DeRay Mckesson Black Lives Matter Protest Case Down to the Louisiana Supreme Court
The Court avoids, at least for now, the First Amendment question by instructing the Fifth Circuit to ask the Louisiana Supreme Court to decide whether Louisiana state law even allows negligence liability in the case.
Even after the shutdown orders are lifted, businesses may fear liability if they reopen and someone supposedly gets sick as a result—when Congress concludes reopening is safe, should it block such liability?
More on Doe v. Mckesson, the Baton Rouge Black Lives Matter case.
the Baton Rouge Black Lives Matter case (in which Judge Don Willett has just switched to dissenting, and in which a cert. petition has been filed with the U.S. Supreme Court).
Grandmother's Tirade to 13-Year-Old Granddaughter, Blaming Her for Being Raped, Leads to Tort Liability
The California Court of Appeal upheld a $900,000 intentional infliction of emotional distress verdict against the grandmother, who had cofounded the Trinity Broadcasting Network.
The defendants are "Stunna 4 Vegas" and "Dababy"-run company Billion Dollar Baby Entertainment, LLC.
A New Jersey appellate court said a co-worker relationship (if long-lasting and close enough) "would be adequate to fairly warrant the imposition of a duty to act." The New Jersey Supreme Court declined to opine on this, and instead concludes that such a duty wouldn't be triggered on the facts of this case.
A creative legal theory, roundly rejected.
That's what a New Jersey appellate court seems to have created, based on the theory that a criminal's coworkers somehow have a special duty to the victim -- even when the crime has nothing at all to do with the job.
The Georgia Court of Appeals rejected Snapchat's federal 47 U.S.C. sec. 230 defense, though Snapchat may still win under Georgia law.
Do Landlords Have a Duty to Evict Drug-Using Tenants (or Face Liability if Guests Die When Using Drugs with Them)?
The North Dakota Supreme Court says "no," but one judge dissents.