When.com Web Search

Search results

  1. Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
  2. Armitage v Nurse - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armitage_v_Nurse

    But while we regard the difference between fraud on the one hand and mere negligence, however gross, on the other as a difference in kind, we regard the difference between negligence and gross negligence as merely one of degree. English lawyers have always had a healthy disrespect for the latter distinction. In Hinton v.

  3. Gough v Neary - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gough_v_Neary

    Gough v Neary & Cronin [2003] IESC 39; [2003] IR 92; [2004] 1 ILRM 35 [1] is an Irish Supreme Court case in which the court ruled that a claim against a gynecologist for performing an unnecessary hysterectomy was no longer legally enforceable owing to a prescribed period of limitation having lapsed under the Statute of Limitations (Amendment) Act 1991.

  4. Royscot Trust Ltd v Rogerson - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royscot_Trust_Ltd_v_Rogerson

    See also the decision of Sir Douglas Frank Q.C., sitting as a High Court judge, in McNally v. Welltrade International Ltd. [1978] I.R.L.R. 497 . In each of these cases the judge held that the basis for the assessment of damages under section 2(1) of the Act of 1967 is that established in Doyle v Olby (Ironmongers) Ltd This is also the effect of ...

  5. Ultramares Corp. v. Touche - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultramares_Corp._v._Touche

    The two causes of action will be considered in succession, first the one for negligence and second that for fraud. (1) We think the evidence supports a finding that the audit was negligently made, though in so saying we put aside for the moment the question whether negligence, even if it existed, was a wrong to the plaintiff.

  6. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Campbell

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_Farm_Mutual...

    State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Campbell, 538 U.S. 408 (2003), was a case in which the United States Supreme Court held that the due process clause usually limits punitive damage awards to less than ten times the size of the compensatory damages awarded and that punitive damage awards of four times the compensatory damage award is "close to the line of constitutional impropriety".

  7. US Supreme Court examines Nvidia bid to avoid securities ...

    www.aol.com/news/us-supreme-court-hear-nvidia...

    The justices heard arguments in Nvidia's appeal of a lower court's decision allowing a 2018 class action - litigation led by the Stockholm, Sweden-based investment management firm E. Ohman J:or ...

  8. Gross negligence - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gross_negligence

    But while we regard the difference between fraud on the one hand and mere negligence, however gross, on the other as a difference in kind, we regard the difference between negligence and gross negligence as merely one of degree. English lawyers have always had a healthy disrespect for the latter distinction. In Hinton v.

  9. Case law - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Case_law

    An appellate court may also decide on an entirely new and different analysis from that of junior courts, and may or may not be bound by its own previous decisions, or in any case, may distinguish them on the facts. [5] [6] Where there are several members of a court deciding a case, there may be one or more judgments given (or reported).