Are Punitive Damages Available in Publishers' Lawsuit Over Harassment Campaign by eBay Employees?
Fort the answer—or rather, answers—a court has to resolve a choice of law question.
Fort the answer—or rather, answers—a court has to resolve a choice of law question.
The court also concluded defendant had libeled plaintiff, but the court held that even the nonlibelous expressions of opinion could lead to emotional distress liability. The total verdict of $6.8M.
"Boneless wings" aren't wings, so does that mean they don't have to be boneless either? The Ohio Supreme Court weighs in.
A recent panel discussion on whether state and local suits against fossil fuel producers are preempted by federal law (and my arguments for why the answer is "no, they are not").
This used to be possible under the old "alienation of affections" tort, but all but a handful of states have abolished it, and the tortious inducement of breach of contract tort can't fill that gap.
The plaintiffs claimed that 15-year-old Bella Herndon committed suicide because of the film.
The former Attorney General disagrees with me on whether state and local government climate change lawsuits belong in federal court.
the Ninth Circuit rules, though expressly noting that "The question whether the Nevermind album cover meets the definition of child pornography is not at issue in this appeal."
The justices are considering whether to grant certiorari in Minnesota's lawsuit against energy companies.
"Duty of care has worked in other areas," the senator said, "and it seems to fit decently well here in the AI model."
Just published, in our symposium on Artificial Intelligence and Speech; more articles from the symposium coming in the next few days.
Just published, in our symposium on Artificial Intelligence and Speech; more articles from the symposium coming in the next few days.
The Colorado Supreme Court holds that the state constitution precludes revival of claims on which the statute of limitations has expired.
The Seventh Circuit so holds, applying Wisconsin tort law, and not reaching the 47 U.S.C. § 230 issue.
The court also concludes that there is no separate "verbal assault" tort in Mississippi, and that falsely telling spouse "I love you" generally isn't actionable fraud.
"An attorney-client relationship between two adults does not present the same inherent danger or foreseeability" as "a relationship between an adult and a child in a religious organization."
The Eighth Circuit joins the First, Third, Fourth, Ninth, and Tenth in rejecting the arguments for removal, but Judge David Stras writes an interesting concurrence.
Lawyers representing an allegedly duped Buffalo Wild Wings customer demand that the company disgorge its ill-gotten gains.
(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.
A new decision from the Georgia Court of Appeals.
Research conducted with sitting judges suggests that autonomous vehicles will be judged more harshly than conventional vehicles.
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.
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.
(You don't really have to shut up, but here's my money.)
Yes, I'll donate to Reason right now! I'll keep my money today, thanksReason is an independent, audience-supported media organization. Your investment helps us reach millions of people every month.
Yes, I’ll invest in Reason’s growth! No thanksHelp Reason push back with more of the fact-based reporting we do best. Your support means more reporters, more investigations, and more coverage.
Make a donation today! No thanksReason is the antidote to the same old stale take on ideas that actually matter to me.
I’ll support Free Minds and Free Markets! Not interestedReason pushes me to think critically with facts and analysis that shape my perspective and amplify the ideas I care about.
I want to make a donation so that my voice can be heard! Not todayEvery dollar I give helps to fund more journalists, more videos, and more amazing stories that celebrate liberty.
Yes! I want to put my money where your mouth is! Not interestedIt’s hard to trust the media these days, especially when everyone is pushing a partisan agenda. Reason stands for my right to make my own choices.
Yes, I want to make a difference for Free Minds and Free Markets! No, I’ll follow the partisan herdReason’s fearless, principled journalism keeps me sane in a crazy world.
Making a donation to Reason right now will keep me from losing my mind! No, I like being madSo much of the media tries telling you what to think. Support journalism that helps you to think for yourself.
I’ll donate to Reason right now! No thanksSupport the voices that advocate for your freedom. Donate to Reason today!
Yes, I want to make a difference for Free Minds and Free Markets! No thanksPush back against misleading media lies and bad ideas. Support Reason’s journalism today.
My donation today will help Reason push back! Not today