Search for: "State v. Prosser"
Results 141 - 155
of 155
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
29 Jul 2009, 12:04 pm
Auth. v. [read post]
22 Jan 2009, 2:06 am
That testimony killed the plaintiff's standard product liability case, because under California (and almost all other states') law, a plaintiff cannot establish causation in an inadequate warning case where the prescribing physician did not rely upon the allegedly defective warning. [read post]
29 Aug 2008, 6:23 pm
.; et al. v. [read post]
30 Jul 2008, 12:33 pm
Prosser (1966) - 89781 Harv. [read post]
28 Apr 2008, 11:27 am
Having left open the state IP claims, the court (also correctly, IMO) says that a right of publicity claim is an IP claim while any other invasion of privacy claim (i.e., the other three prongs of Prosser's four privacy torts) is not. [read post]
20 Apr 2008, 6:29 am
Rev. 55 (1963). 16 446 John Hart Ely, The Wages of Crying Wolf: A Comment on Roe v. [read post]
18 Mar 2008, 11:08 pm
" [17] Van Gorkom The next case is Smith v. [read post]
12 Mar 2008, 12:52 pm
Privacy has been defined as retirement and seclusion, or as "the state of being free from unsanctioned intrusion. [read post]
15 Nov 2007, 10:15 pm
Ted Frank has a good round up of analysis on the potential problems spots at Point of Law; And Howard Erichson reports on a plaintiffs-only conference to discuss the settlement;From the miscellaneous category: New York State practitioners should take note of a reversal in Raffellini v. [read post]
25 Jun 2007, 1:46 am
Some of you may recall this post from last month about the Palmer v. [read post]
20 Jun 2007, 2:42 am
Obviously, a significant feature of the above case is its impact on those persons who are in the position of relying upon the State for nursing home and post-retirement care - so seeing it in the context of work for older people (he is too modest to mention it, but Dr. [read post]
24 May 2007, 10:40 am
"Prosser on Torts states something similar - "Where there is a normal situation, coearly identical with that contemplated by the statute or regulation, it. . .can be ruled as a matter of law that the actor has done his full duty by complying with the statute, and nothing more is required. [read post]
6 May 2007, 11:32 am
" State v. [read post]
3 May 2007, 10:20 am
App. 1975) (a "state can never sue in tort in its political or governmental capacity"), aff'd, 356 N.E.2d 561 (Ill. 1976).Chicago v. [read post]
23 Mar 2007, 10:00 pm
United States, 848 F.2d 362, 364 [2d Cir1988] ). [read post]
