Search for: "HARMS v. HARMS"
Results 1481 - 1500
of 36,743
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
23 Nov 2011, 2:22 am
Practice point: Although a property owner must act in a reasonable manner to prevent harm to those on its premises, the duty to control the conduct of persons on its premises arises only when the owner can control such conduct, and is reasonably aware of the need for that control.Student note: The owner of a public establishment has no duty to protect patrons against unforeseeable and unexpected assaults.Case: Kiely v. [read post]
1 May 2009, 4:43 am
See Southern Co. v. [read post]
28 Feb 2011, 6:00 am
In Smith v. [read post]
27 Mar 2007, 10:29 am
Fausey v. [read post]
3 Dec 2013, 7:39 am
David Kalow and Milton Springut point out in the New York Law Journal that this has been the law in the Second Circuit since the 2010 decision in Salinger v. [read post]
5 Oct 2010, 10:04 am
In Snyder v. [read post]
27 Oct 2014, 5:40 am
Bajwa v. [read post]
17 May 2022, 5:00 am
Indeed, Reynolds v. [read post]
11 Sep 2016, 4:04 am
While they could physically do harm, sometimes terrible harm, they lacked the intellectual capacity to appreciate the harm in a mature way. [read post]
19 Oct 2018, 10:47 am
In Caparo v Dickman Lord Bridge cautioned against discussing duties of care in abstract terms divorced from factual context:"It is never sufficient to ask simply whether A owes B a duty of care. [read post]
5 Feb 2018, 12:25 pm
Hayag v. [read post]
17 Mar 2017, 12:18 pm
Coon v. [read post]
15 Aug 2023, 11:49 am
Clark v. [read post]
8 May 2015, 1:01 pm
In Babahmetovic v. [read post]
16 Jun 2011, 10:14 am
Brantley v. [read post]
11 Feb 2011, 9:52 pm
In footnote seven of Lujan v. [read post]
26 Jul 2017, 8:43 am
Susinno v. [read post]
4 Apr 2010, 9:13 am
Applying Utah law, per the agreement, the Court overruled its prior ruling because the agreement did not mention harm. [read post]
14 Jan 2009, 11:14 am
US (opinion) and Oregon v. [read post]
4 Jun 2008, 2:38 pm
Ayers v. [read post]
