Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
The act provides immunity to the State of California and its related entities from being sued. The law immunizes public employees from liability for “instituting or prosecuting any judicial or administrative proceeding” within the scope of their employment, “even if” the employees act “maliciously and without probable cause.” (Cal. Gov. Code, § 821.6)
The Court ruled that corporations and their executive officers can be held legally responsible under the Alien Tort Claims Act for violations of international human rights norms in foreign countries, and that U.S. courts have the authority to adjudicate such claims.
Muskopf v. Corning Hospital District, 55 Cal. 2d 211 (1961) overturned the doctrine of sovereign immunity, although the Legislature promptly overrode Muskopf with the Tort Claims Act of 1963 as explained in Biggers v. Sacramento City Unified School District, 25 Cal. App. 3d 269 (1972) Bernkrant v.
David Dudley Field II's audacity in trying to codify all of the general principles of the common law (including the law of property, domestic relations, contracts, and torts) into general statutory law in the form of a civil code was extremely controversial in the American legal community, both in his time and ever since.
The United States has waived sovereign immunity to a limited extent, mainly through the Federal Tort Claims Act, which waives the immunity if a tortious act of a federal employee causes damage, and the Tucker Act, which waives the immunity over claims arising out of contracts to which the federal government is a party. The Federal Tort Claims ...
Yuba Power Products, Inc, was a California torts case in which the Supreme Court of California dealt with the torts regarding product liability and warranty breaches. The primary legal issue of the case was to determine whether a manufacturer is strictly liable in tort when an article he places on the market proves to have a defect that causes ...
Learn about full and limited tort car insurance and if you can sue after an accident.
Cumis innovated beyond existing precedent as of 1984 by holding that the insurer was required to pay for the insured's independent counsel, and that a merely theoretical conflict of interest could be ripened by the insurer's act of sending a reservation of rights letter into an actual conflict of interest, which in turn meant that the insured ...