Recently in Injury and Tort Law Category

A group of Nigerian plaintiffs claim that Royal Dutch Petroleum Company and Shell Transport and Trading Company -- which you probably know as Shell Oil -- aided and abetted the Nigerian government in committing human rights abuses against them. Those abuses included beating, raping, and arresting people, and destroying or looting property.

The plaintiffs sued the oil company in the U.S. under the Alien Tort Statute in 2002. Eleven years later, they have officially lost their case because the presumption against extraterritoriality applies to claims under the ATS, and the statute doesn't rebut that presumption.

The Supreme Court decided this week that the Third Circuit Court of Appeals is all kinds of wrong.

Wednesday, the Court issued two opinions reversing earlier Third Circuit rulings: Millbrook v. U.S. and Comcast Corp et al v. Behrend.

The Federal Trade Commission believes that paying a prospective rival to stay out of a competition is the very definition of anti-competitive behavior, but the federal courts are split on the matter, Reuters reports.

Monday, the Supreme Court will take a stab at resolving whether brand and generic drug manufacturers should be allowed to enter into mutually-beneficial pay-for-delay arrangements.

There are a few Supreme Court cases each term that become part of the collective consciousness: Last year, there were the healthcare and immigration cases. This year, there are the Voting Rights Act, same-sex marriage, and affirmative action cases.

These are the issues that people get excited about. These are the topics that people discuss around the dinner table. These are the captions that law geeks write on their legal pads in swirly letters and circle with hearts.

The Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) waives the government’s sovereign immunity from tort suits, but certain intentional torts — including battery — are excluded from the waiver.

Monday, however, the Supreme Court ruled that the Gonzalez Act abrogates the FTCA’s intentional tort exception and permits a medical battery suit against the U.S.

Despite the joyful refrain of "innocent until proven guilty," the government usually has the upper hand in a legal battle.

Need proof? Look no further than yesterday's Supreme Court decision in the FISA wiretapping case. Amnesty International, along with several other plaintiffs, challenged a federal law permitting the government to use electronic surveillance to monitor the international communications of people suspected of having ties to terrorist groups. The majority agreed with the government that the plaintiffs lacked standing because they couldn't show that they suffered an injury.

The catch? The only way a plaintiff can show injury is for the government to admit that it was spying on that person. The government holds all the cards.

The Supreme Court ruled against Amnesty International and a delinquent debtor this morning, dispelling any misconceived notions that the plight of the little guy can melt the cold heart of justice.

In two split decisions, the Court decided journalists, lawyers and human rights groups cannot challenge a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) amendment, and that a woman who defaulted on her student loans owes court costs after bringing a Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) claim against a debt collector.

We’ve all heard the phrase “Justice is blind.” While many of us question whether that adage is as true in practice as it is in theory, certain cases make us realize that the law can be blind to the bright line distinction between right and wrong.

For example, if a prisoner is sexually assaulted by prison guards, shouldn’t he be able to hold the government accountable? Last year, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals concluded that, if the assault didn’t occur during an arrest, search, or seizure, such a claim wasn’t cognizable.

Next week, the Supreme Court will review the matter to decide whether the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) waives sovereign immunity for the intentional torts of prison guards when they are acting within the scope of their employment, but not exercising authority to “execute searches, to seize evidence, or to make arrests for violations of federal law.”

The holidays are upon us! Hanukkah begins this weekend. Christmas trees are popping up around town. Barbara Walters is picking her most fascinating people of the year.

It's truly the most wonderful time of the year ... to discuss the Establishment Clause.

Each year, the debate begins anew: Which holiday traditions are constitutionally-condoned based on the Supreme Court's Establishment Clause rulings? Here are three tips to guide you when spiking publicly-owned spaces with holiday cheer.

Temporary flooding can be a taking. And the government can be forced to compensate for it.

That’s the word from the Supreme Court, which ruled in an 8-0 decision that there’s no reason for courts to differentiate flooding from the “myriad other instances of government occupation or invasion of property.”