Case briefs

Landmark case briefs across every law subject.

Browse 7757 source-linked case summaries searchable by name, citation, court, jurisdiction, practice area, and legal principle.

7,757

Case briefs

129

Jurisdictions

167

Practice areas

Showing 80 of 2,279 matching case briefs.

Entick v. Carrington

basic

(1765) 19 St Tr 1029, [1765] EWHC KB J98

Court of King's Bench · 1765 · England and Wales

Issue: Whether a general warrant issued by a Secretary of State, not authorized by statute or common law, could provide a legal justification for a forcible entry into a home and seizure of papers.
Held: The warrant was illegal and void. The defendants were liable in trespass. There was no legal authority for the Secretary of State to issue such a warrant. The right to property and personal security is paramount and cannot be invaded without lawful authority.
Ratio: The executive has no power to search a person's home or seize their papers without clear legal authority. The common law does not authorize general warrants for search and seizure based on suspicion of seditious libel. The Secretary of State, as an executive officer, has no special power to issue such warrants. Every invasion of private property is a trespass unless justified by law. The burden is on the official to show the legal authority for the intrusion. The 'state necessity' argument is no justification for trespass against private property.

legal-history

constitutional-law

tort

rule-of-law

Cook v. Lewis

advanced

[1951] SCR 830

Supreme Court of Canada · 1951 · Canada

Issue: Whether the burden of proof shifts to the defendants to exonerate themselves in a case of concurrent negligent acts.
Held: Yes, where two defendants act negligently and it is impossible to prove which caused the harm, the burden shifts to each to show they did not cause the damage.
Ratio: In cases of multiple tortfeasors where each has committed a wrongful act but only one caused the injury, the plaintiff can shift the burden of proof to the defendants (alternative liability).

tort-law

Torts

Negligence – multiple tortfeasors / alternative liability

Summers v. Tice

intermediate

33 Cal.2d 80, 199 P.2d 1 (1948)

Supreme Court of California · 1948 · United States (California)

Issue: Whether the plaintiff must prove which of the two negligent defendants caused the injury.
Held: No, the burden shifts to each defendant to show that they did not cause the injury; if both fail, both are jointly and severally liable.
Ratio: Where two defendants are negligent and only one causes the injury, but the plaintiff cannot identify which one, the burden of proof shifts to the defendants to exonerate themselves.

tort-law

Torts

Negligence – multiple tortfeasors / alternative liability

BANKRUPTCY ADMINISTRATOR v. Diana Maria GREGORY

basic

471 B.R. 823

United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. North Carolina · 2012 · United States

Issue: How might BANKRUPTCY ADMINISTRATOR v. Diana Maria GREGORY help a student research, compare, or distinguish an issue in Torts, and what must be verified in the linked source before citation?
Held: Source-linked holding checkpoint: verify the dispositive holding in the linked source. This entry intentionally avoids inventing a rule that may not belong to Torts.
Ratio: Extract the ratio from the linked judgment by identifying the legal test, material facts, and reason for the outcome. Treat this record as a research lead unless the source confirms a direct Torts rule.

tort-law

Torts

bankruptcy-law

Bankruptcy Law

IN RE: Shawn W. STERNAT, Debtor

basic

556 B.R. 394

United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Wisconsin · 2016 · United States

Issue: How might IN RE: Shawn W. STERNAT, Debtor help a student research, compare, or distinguish an issue in Torts, and what must be verified in the linked source before citation?
Held: Source-linked holding checkpoint: verify the dispositive holding in the linked source. This entry intentionally avoids inventing a rule that may not belong to Torts.
Ratio: Extract the ratio from the linked judgment by identifying the legal test, material facts, and reason for the outcome. Treat this record as a research lead unless the source confirms a direct Torts rule.

tort-law

Torts

bankruptcy-law

Bankruptcy Law

IN RE ALLEGRO LAW LLC, Debtor

basic

566 B.R. 621

United States Bankruptcy Court, M.D. Alabama · 2017 · United States

Issue: How might IN RE ALLEGRO LAW LLC, Debtor help a student research, compare, or distinguish an issue in Torts, and what must be verified in the linked source before citation?
Held: Source-linked holding checkpoint: verify the dispositive holding in the linked source. This entry intentionally avoids inventing a rule that may not belong to Torts.
Ratio: Extract the ratio from the linked judgment by identifying the legal test, material facts, and reason for the outcome. Treat this record as a research lead unless the source confirms a direct Torts rule.

tort-law

Torts

bankruptcy-law

Bankruptcy Law

In re Tequilla Marie LAW, Debtor

basic

497 B.R. 843

United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Texas · 2013 · United States

Issue: How might In re Tequilla Marie LAW, Debtor help a student research, compare, or distinguish an issue in Torts, and what must be verified in the linked source before citation?
Held: Source-linked holding checkpoint: verify the dispositive holding in the linked source. This entry intentionally avoids inventing a rule that may not belong to Torts.
Ratio: Extract the ratio from the linked judgment by identifying the legal test, material facts, and reason for the outcome. Treat this record as a research lead unless the source confirms a direct Torts rule.

tort-law

Torts

bankruptcy-law

Bankruptcy Law

IN RE ALLEGRO LAW LLC, Debtor

basic

568 B.R. 832

United States Bankruptcy Court, M.D. Alabama · 2017 · United States

Issue: How might IN RE ALLEGRO LAW LLC, Debtor help a student research, compare, or distinguish an issue in Torts, and what must be verified in the linked source before citation?
Held: Source-linked holding checkpoint: verify the dispositive holding in the linked source. This entry intentionally avoids inventing a rule that may not belong to Torts.
Ratio: Extract the ratio from the linked judgment by identifying the legal test, material facts, and reason for the outcome. Treat this record as a research lead unless the source confirms a direct Torts rule.

tort-law

Torts

bankruptcy-law

Bankruptcy Law

IN RE: BASRAH CUSTOM DESIGN, INC., Debtor.

basic

600 B.R. 385

United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Michigan · 2019 · United States

Issue: How might IN RE: BASRAH CUSTOM DESIGN, INC., Debtor. help a student research, compare, or distinguish an issue in Torts, and what must be verified in the linked source before citation?
Held: Source-linked holding checkpoint: verify the dispositive holding in the linked source. This entry intentionally avoids inventing a rule that may not belong to Torts.
Ratio: Extract the ratio from the linked judgment by identifying the legal test, material facts, and reason for the outcome. Treat this record as a research lead unless the source confirms a direct Torts rule.

tort-law

Torts

bankruptcy-law

Bankruptcy Law

IN RE: BASRAH CUSTOM DESIGN, INC., Debtor.

basic

602 B.R. 31

United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Michigan · 2019 · United States

Issue: How might IN RE: BASRAH CUSTOM DESIGN, INC., Debtor. help a student research, compare, or distinguish an issue in Torts, and what must be verified in the linked source before citation?
Held: Source-linked holding checkpoint: verify the dispositive holding in the linked source. This entry intentionally avoids inventing a rule that may not belong to Torts.
Ratio: Extract the ratio from the linked judgment by identifying the legal test, material facts, and reason for the outcome. Treat this record as a research lead unless the source confirms a direct Torts rule.

tort-law

Torts

bankruptcy-law

Bankruptcy Law

IN RE: Robert QUINN and Lea Quinn, Debtors.

basic

586 B.R. 1

United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Michigan · 2018 · United States

Issue: How might IN RE: Robert QUINN and Lea Quinn, Debtors. help a student research, compare, or distinguish an issue in Torts, and what must be verified in the linked source before citation?
Held: Source-linked holding checkpoint: verify the dispositive holding in the linked source. This entry intentionally avoids inventing a rule that may not belong to Torts.
Ratio: Extract the ratio from the linked judgment by identifying the legal test, material facts, and reason for the outcome. Treat this record as a research lead unless the source confirms a direct Torts rule.

tort-law

Torts

bankruptcy-law

Bankruptcy Law

IN RE: Kelly Sue PURCELL (nka Busby), Debtor

basic

573 B.R. 859

United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Kansas · 2017 · United States

Issue: How might IN RE: Kelly Sue PURCELL (nka Busby), Debtor help a student research, compare, or distinguish an issue in Torts, and what must be verified in the linked source before citation?
Held: Source-linked holding checkpoint: verify the dispositive holding in the linked source. This entry intentionally avoids inventing a rule that may not belong to Torts.
Ratio: Extract the ratio from the linked judgment by identifying the legal test, material facts, and reason for the outcome. Treat this record as a research lead unless the source confirms a direct Torts rule.

tort-law

Torts

bankruptcy-law

Bankruptcy Law

IN RE Elda C. ROMERO and Luis Romero-Banda, Debtors

basic

539 B.R. 557

United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Wisconsin · 2015 · United States

Issue: How might IN RE Elda C. ROMERO and Luis Romero-Banda, Debtors help a student research, compare, or distinguish an issue in Torts, and what must be verified in the linked source before citation?
Held: Source-linked holding checkpoint: verify the dispositive holding in the linked source. This entry intentionally avoids inventing a rule that may not belong to Torts.
Ratio: Extract the ratio from the linked judgment by identifying the legal test, material facts, and reason for the outcome. Treat this record as a research lead unless the source confirms a direct Torts rule.

tort-law

Torts

bankruptcy-law

Bankruptcy Law

IN RE Essie M. PHIFER, Debtor. Essie M. Phifer v. City of Milwaukee

basic

547 B.R. 288

United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Wisconsin · 2016 · United States

Issue: How might IN RE Essie M. PHIFER, Debtor. Essie M. Phifer v. City of Milwaukee help a student research, compare, or distinguish an issue in Torts, and what must be verified in the linked source before citation?
Held: Source-linked holding checkpoint: verify the dispositive holding in the linked source. This entry intentionally avoids inventing a rule that may not belong to Torts.
Ratio: Extract the ratio from the linked judgment by identifying the legal test, material facts, and reason for the outcome. Treat this record as a research lead unless the source confirms a direct Torts rule.

tort-law

Torts

bankruptcy-law

Bankruptcy Law

In Re Jean Anne LAW, Debtor Jean Anne Law Movant v. No Respondent

basic

421 B.R. 735

United States Bankruptcy Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · 2010 · United States

Issue: How might In Re Jean Anne LAW, Debtor Jean Anne Law Movant v. No Respondent help a student research, compare, or distinguish an issue in Torts, and what must be verified in the linked source before citation?
Held: Source-linked holding checkpoint: verify the dispositive holding in the linked source. This entry intentionally avoids inventing a rule that may not belong to Torts.
Ratio: Extract the ratio from the linked judgment by identifying the legal test, material facts, and reason for the outcome. Treat this record as a research lead unless the source confirms a direct Torts rule.

tort-law

Torts

bankruptcy-law

Bankruptcy Law

In the Matter of: Hunsdon Cary STEWART, Attorney, Debtor, The Bankruptcy Law Firm, PC

basic

334 Fed. Appx. 854

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2009 · United States

Issue: How might In the Matter of: Hunsdon Cary STEWART, Attorney, Debtor, The Bankruptcy Law Firm, PC help a student research, compare, or distinguish an issue in Torts, and what must be verified in the linked source before citation?
Held: Source-linked holding checkpoint: verify the dispositive holding in the linked source. This entry intentionally avoids inventing a rule that may not belong to Torts.
Ratio: Extract the ratio from the linked judgment by identifying the legal test, material facts, and reason for the outcome. Treat this record as a research lead unless the source confirms a direct Torts rule.

tort-law

Torts

bankruptcy-law

Bankruptcy Law

In re Martin L. REICHARTZ, Debtor. American Family Mutual Insurance Co. v. Martin L. Reichartz

basic

488 B.R. 620

United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Wisconsin · 2013 · United States

Issue: How might In re Martin L. REICHARTZ, Debtor. American Family Mutual Insurance Co. v. Martin L. Reichartz help a student research, compare, or distinguish an issue in Torts, and what must be verified in the linked source before citation?
Held: Source-linked holding checkpoint: verify the dispositive holding in the linked source. This entry intentionally avoids inventing a rule that may not belong to Torts.
Ratio: Extract the ratio from the linked judgment by identifying the legal test, material facts, and reason for the outcome. Treat this record as a research lead unless the source confirms a direct Torts rule.

tort-law

Torts

bankruptcy-law

Bankruptcy Law

Smith v. Leech Brain & Co.

intermediate

[1962] 2 QB 405

Queen's Bench Division · 1962 · England and Wales

Issue: Whether the defendant is liable for the full extent of harm, even if the plaintiff had a pre-existing vulnerability.
Held: Yes, the defendant must take the victim as they find them; the eggshell skull rule applies.
Ratio: A tortfeasor is liable for the full extent of injuries caused to the plaintiff, even if the plaintiff had an unusual vulnerability that made the harm worse.

tort-law

Torts

Negligence – damages / eggshell skull rule

Hymowitz v. Eli Lilly & Co.

basic

73 N.Y.2d 487, 539 N.E.2d 1069 (1989)

New York Court of Appeals · 1989 · United States (New York)

Issue: Whether liability can be apportioned among DES manufacturers based on market share when the specific manufacturer is unknown.
Held: Yes, liability is apportioned among manufacturers by their respective shares of the market, using a national market share approach.
Ratio: In DES cases where the specific manufacturer cannot be identified, each manufacturer is liable in proportion to its market share of the drug, provided all manufacturers acted tortiously.

tort-law

Torts

Products liability – DES / market share liability

D.C. APPLESEED CENTER FOR LAW AND JUSTICE, INC. v. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA DEPARTMENT OF INSURANCE, SECURITIES, AND BANKING, and Group Hospitalization and Medical Services, Inc., Intervenor

basic

54 A.3d 1188

District of Columbia Court of Appeals · 2012 · Jurisdiction from source

Issue: How might D.C. APPLESEED CENTER FOR LAW AND JUSTICE, INC. v. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA DEPARTMENT OF INSURANCE, SECURITIES, AND BANKING, and Group Hospitalization and Medical Services, Inc., Intervenor help a student research, compare, or distinguish an issue in Torts, and what must be verified in the linked source before citation?
Held: Source-linked holding checkpoint: verify the dispositive holding in the linked source. This entry intentionally avoids inventing a rule that may not belong to Torts.
Ratio: Extract the ratio from the linked judgment by identifying the legal test, material facts, and reason for the outcome. Treat this record as a research lead unless the source confirms a direct Torts rule.

tort-law

Torts

banking-law

Banking Law

Certification from the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of Washington in In the Matter of the Bankruptcy Petition of Larry Charles Wieber

basic

182 Wash. 2d 919

Washington Supreme Court · 2015 · Jurisdiction from source

Issue: How might Certification from the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of Washington in In the Matter of the Bankruptcy Petition of Larry Charles Wieber help a student research, compare, or distinguish an issue in Torts, and what must be verified in the linked source before citation?
Held: Source-linked holding checkpoint: verify the dispositive holding in the linked source. This entry intentionally avoids inventing a rule that may not belong to Torts.
Ratio: Extract the ratio from the linked judgment by identifying the legal test, material facts, and reason for the outcome. Treat this record as a research lead unless the source confirms a direct Torts rule.

tort-law

Torts

bankruptcy-law

Bankruptcy Law

Stephen LAW, Petitioner v. Alfred H. SIEGEL, Chapter 7 Trustee.

basic

188 L. Ed. 2d 146

Supreme Court of the United States · 2014 · United States

Issue: How might Stephen LAW, Petitioner v. Alfred H. SIEGEL, Chapter 7 Trustee. help a student research, compare, or distinguish an issue in Torts, and what must be verified in the linked source before citation?
Held: Source-linked holding checkpoint: verify the dispositive holding in the linked source. This entry intentionally avoids inventing a rule that may not belong to Torts.
Ratio: Extract the ratio from the linked judgment by identifying the legal test, material facts, and reason for the outcome. Treat this record as a research lead unless the source confirms a direct Torts rule.

tort-law

Torts

bankruptcy-law

Bankruptcy Law

Busch Law Firm, LLC v. Frontline Medical Services LLC

basic

25-009

Bankruptcy Appellate Panel of the Tenth Circuit · 2025 · United States

Issue: How might Busch Law Firm, LLC v. Frontline Medical Services LLC help a student research, compare, or distinguish an issue in Torts, and what must be verified in the linked source before citation?
Held: Source-linked holding checkpoint: verify the dispositive holding in the linked source. This entry intentionally avoids inventing a rule that may not belong to Torts.
Ratio: Extract the ratio from the linked judgment by identifying the legal test, material facts, and reason for the outcome. Treat this record as a research lead unless the source confirms a direct Torts rule.

tort-law

Torts

bankruptcy-law

Bankruptcy Law

Law Office of Rogelio Solis v. Curtis

basic

83 F.4th 409

Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 2023 · United States

Issue: How might Law Office of Rogelio Solis v. Curtis help a student research, compare, or distinguish an issue in Torts, and what must be verified in the linked source before citation?
Held: Source-linked holding checkpoint: verify the dispositive holding in the linked source. This entry intentionally avoids inventing a rule that may not belong to Torts.
Ratio: Extract the ratio from the linked judgment by identifying the legal test, material facts, and reason for the outcome. Treat this record as a research lead unless the source confirms a direct Torts rule.

tort-law

Torts

bankruptcy-law

Bankruptcy Law

Busch Law Firm, LLC v. Frontline Medical Services LLC

basic

24-008

Bankruptcy Appellate Panel of the Tenth Circuit · 2024 · United States

Issue: How might Busch Law Firm, LLC v. Frontline Medical Services LLC help a student research, compare, or distinguish an issue in Torts, and what must be verified in the linked source before citation?
Held: Source-linked holding checkpoint: verify the dispositive holding in the linked source. This entry intentionally avoids inventing a rule that may not belong to Torts.
Ratio: Extract the ratio from the linked judgment by identifying the legal test, material facts, and reason for the outcome. Treat this record as a research lead unless the source confirms a direct Torts rule.

tort-law

Torts

bankruptcy-law

Bankruptcy Law

Sindell v. Abbott Laboratories

intermediate

26 Cal.3d 588, 607 P.2d 924 (1980)

Supreme Court of California · 1980 · United States (California)

Issue: Whether a plaintiff may recover from manufacturers of DES based on their share of the market when the specific manufacturer is unknown.
Held: Yes, each manufacturer is liable in proportion to its market share, provided the plaintiff joins a substantial share of the relevant market.
Ratio: Where multiple manufacturers produce a fungible product under a shared risk, the burden of proof shifts to each manufacturer to show that it did not produce the product causing the injury.

tort-law

Torts

Products liability – DES / industry-wide liability

Ultramares Corporation v. Touche

basic

255 NY 170, 174 NE 441 (1931)

New York Court of Appeals · 1931 · United States (New York)

Issue: Whether an accountant owes a duty of care to a third party who was not in privity and whom the accountant did not know would rely on the statements.
Held: No, liability to third parties for negligent misrepresentation is limited to those in privity or who are specifically known as intended recipients.
Ratio: Liability for negligent misrepresentation extends only to persons with whom the maker has a direct contractual relationship or who are members of a known and limited class of potential reliance (the Ultramares rule).

tort-law

Torts

Negligent misrepresentation – liability to third parties

Wagon Mound (No. 1) – Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v. Morts Dock & Engineering Co Ltd

basic

[1961] AC 388

Privy Council (appeal from New South Wales) · 1961 · Australia

Issue: Whether the defendant is liable for damage by fire when they could not have reasonably foreseen that oil on water could be ignited.
Held: No, the defendant is not liable because the fire damage was not reasonably foreseeable as a consequence of the oil spill.
Ratio: Damages are recoverable only for injuries that were reasonably foreseeable at the time of the negligent act; this overrules the direct consequence test of Re Polemis.

tort-law

Torts

Negligence – remoteness of damage / foreseeability

Blyth v. Birmingham Waterworks Co.

basic

(1856) 11 Exch. 781, 156 ER 1047

Court of Exchequer · 1856 · England and Wales

Issue: Whether the defendant was negligent for failing to anticipate the extraordinary frost.
Held: No, the defendant is not negligent because the frost was an act of God that could not reasonably have been foreseen.
Ratio: A defendant is only required to take precautions against events that a reasonable person would foresee as possible; not against acts of God.

tort-law

Torts

Negligence – standard of care

Palsgraf v. Long Island Railroad Co.

intermediate

248 NY 339, 162 NE 99 (1928)

New York Court of Appeals · 1928 · United States (New York)

Issue: Whether the railroad can be held negligent for injury to a plaintiff outside the zone of foreseeable danger from the guard's act.
Held: No, the railroad is not liable because the injury was not within the foreseeable risk created by the guard's conduct.
Ratio: Negligence liability is limited to harms within the scope of the foreseeable risk; duty is owed only to those within the class of foreseeable plaintiffs.

tort-law

Torts

Negligence – proximate cause / scope of duty

Donoghue v. Stevenson

basic

[1932] AC 562

House of Lords · 1932 · United Kingdom

Issue: Whether a manufacturer owes a duty of care to the ultimate consumer of its products in the absence of contractual privity.
Held: Yes, a manufacturer owes a duty of care to the ultimate consumer.
Ratio: A person owes a duty of care to those whom they can reasonably foresee might be injured by their careless acts or omissions; the neighbour principle.

tort-law

Torts

Negligence – duty of care

Rylands v. Fletcher

intermediate

(1868) LR 3 HL 330

House of Lords · 1868 · United Kingdom

Issue: Whether a landowner is strictly liable for damage caused by escape of a dangerous thing brought onto their land.
Held: Yes, the landowner is strictly liable for damage caused by the escape of something likely to cause mischief.
Ratio: A person who brings and keeps anything likely to do mischief onto their land does so at their peril, and is strictly liable if it escapes.

tort-law

Torts

Strict liability – non-natural use of land

United States v. Carroll Towing Co.

basic

159 F.2d 169 (2d Cir. 1947)

United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1947 · United States (Federal)

Issue: Whether the lack of a bargee was negligent, considering the gravity of the potential harm and the burden of precautions.
Held: Yes, the failure to have a bargee aboard was negligent under the circumstances.
Ratio: Duty to take precautions is a function of the probability of harm times the gravity of the harm, compared to the burden of adequate precautions; the Hand formula.

tort-law

Torts

Negligence – breach / Hand formula

McFarlane v. Tayside Health Board

intermediate

[2000] 2 AC 59

House of Lords · 2000 · United Kingdom (Scotland)

Issue: Whether the cost of raising a healthy child born after a failed sterilization is recoverable as damages for negligence.
Held: No, the costs of raising a healthy child are not recoverable; only the pain and distress of the unwanted pregnancy and birth are compensable.
Ratio: Damages for wrongful birth are limited to the loss of autonomy and injury suffered during pregnancy and birth; the cost of raising a healthy child is not recoverable as it is not a loss but a benefit.

tort-law

Torts

Negligence – wrongful birth / damages

Bolton v. Stone

basic

[1951] AC 850

House of Lords · 1951 · United Kingdom

Issue: Whether the cricket club was negligent in not taking further precautions against balls being hit onto the road.
Held: No, the club was not negligent because the risk of such an injury was not reasonably foreseeable.
Ratio: A defendant is not negligent if the risk of harm is so small that a reasonable person would disregard it.

tort-law

Torts

Negligence – breach of duty / reasonable foreseeability

Respublica v. De Longchamps

intermediate

1 US 111, 1 Dall. 111 (1784)

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1784 · United States (Pennsylvania)

Issue: Whether battery requires direct physical contact between defendant and plaintiff.
Held: Yes, any unwanted physical contact can constitute battery.
Ratio: Battery is any intentional, unwanted physical contact with another person.

tort-law

Torts

Trespass to person – battery

I de S and Wife v. W de S

advanced

(1348) YB 22 Edw III, f 99, pl 60

King's Bench · 1348 · England

Issue: Whether assault requires physical contact.
Held: No, assault requires only a reasonable apprehension of immediate battery.
Ratio: Assault is an act that creates a reasonable apprehension of imminent harmful or offensive contact.

tort-law

Torts

Assault – apprehension of imminent contact

Holcombe v. Whitaker

intermediate

294 So. 2d 200 (Ala. 1974)

Supreme Court of Alabama · 1974 · United States (Alabama)

Issue: Whether the detention constituted false imprisonment despite the lack of physical force.
Held: Yes, the detention was false imprisonment because the plaintiff reasonably believed she was not free to leave.
Ratio: False imprisonment occurs when a person is intentionally confined within a bounded area without legal authority or consent.

tort-law

Torts

False imprisonment

Wilkinson v. Downton

basic

[1897] 2 QB 57

Queen's Bench Division · 1897 · England and Wales

Issue: Whether a false statement causing psychological harm can give rise to a tort action.
Held: Yes, the defendant is liable for intentionally causing severe emotional distress through extreme conduct.
Ratio: A person who by extreme and outrageous conduct intentionally inflicts severe emotional distress on another is liable for that distress.

tort-law

Torts

Intentional infliction of emotional distress

Bolam v. Friern Hospital Management Committee

advanced

[1957] 1 WLR 582

Queen's Bench Division · 1957 · England and Wales

Issue: Whether a doctor is negligent if they follow a practice accepted as proper by a responsible body of medical opinion.
Held: No, a doctor is not negligent as long as their practice is accepted as proper by a responsible body of professionals.
Ratio: A professional is not negligent if they act in accordance with a practice accepted as proper by a responsible body of professional opinion, even if others disagree.

tort-law

Torts

Negligence – professional negligence / standard of care

Barnett v. Chelsea and Kensington Hospital Management Committee

intermediate

[1969] 1 QB 428

Queen's Bench Division · 1969 · England and Wales

Issue: Whether the hospital's negligence in failing to examine the patient was the cause of his death, given that treatment could not have saved him.
Held: No, because even with proper examination and treatment, the patient would still have died; causation not proven on the balance of probabilities.
Ratio: The plaintiff must prove on the balance of probabilities that the defendant's breach of duty caused the harm; if the harm would have occurred anyway, causation fails.

tort-law

Torts

Negligence – causation / factual causation

Marc Rich & Co. AG v. Bishop Rock Marine Co Ltd (The Nicholas H)

basic

[1996] AC 211

House of Lords · 1996 · United Kingdom

Issue: Whether a ship classification society owes a duty of care to cargo owners for pure economic loss.
Held: No, imposing a duty of care would be contrary to the contractual allocation of risk and the societal role of classification societies.
Ratio: No duty of care is owed for pure economic loss unless there is a special relationship or assumption of responsibility; policy considerations can preclude liability.

tort-law

Torts

Negligence – economic loss

Anns v. Merton London Borough Council

advanced

[1978] AC 728

House of Lords · 1978 · United Kingdom

Issue: Whether a local authority owes a duty of care to subsequent purchasers of a building to ensure compliance with building regulations.
Held: Yes, the authority can be liable for negligent inspection causing economic loss, applying a two-stage test (foreseeability + policy considerations).
Ratio: A duty of care arises where there is sufficient proximity and it is fair, just, and reasonable to impose such duty; the two-stage test from Anns (now modified in Caparo).

tort-law

Torts

Negligence – duty of care / two-stage test

Caparo Industries plc v. Dickman

basic

[1990] 2 AC 605

House of Lords · 1990 · United Kingdom

Issue: Whether auditors owe a duty of care to individual shareholders or potential investors in the company.
Held: No, auditors do not owe a duty of care to potential investors as there was insufficient proximity; the three-stage test of foreseeability, proximity, and fairness is required.
Ratio: A duty of care arises only if harm is reasonably foreseeable, there is a relationship of proximity, and it is fair, just, and reasonable to impose the duty (the Caparo test).

tort-law

Torts

Negligence – duty of care / three-stage test

Hedley Byrne & Co Ltd v. Heller & Partners Ltd

intermediate

[1964] AC 465

House of Lords · 1964 · United Kingdom

Issue: Whether a duty of care can arise in respect of statements causing pure economic loss.
Held: Yes, if there is a special relationship of reliance and the defendant assumed responsibility, a duty of care arises.
Ratio: Pure economic loss from negligent misstatement is recoverable where there is a special relationship of trust and reliance, and the defendant expressly or impliedly assumed responsibility.

tort-law

Torts

Negligent misstatement – economic loss

Gregg v. Scott

advanced

[2005] UKHL 2, [2005] 2 AC 176

House of Lords · 2005 · United Kingdom

Issue: Whether a plaintiff can recover damages for loss of a chance of a better medical outcome where the chance was less than 50%.
Held: No, the plaintiff cannot recover for loss of a chance of recovery that was always less than 50% on the balance of probabilities.
Ratio: Loss of chance is not generally compensable in medical negligence cases unless the chance of a favourable outcome was more than 50% (the traditional but-for test applies).

tort-law

Torts

Negligence – loss of chance / causation

Montreal Tramways v. Léveillé

intermediate

[1933] SCR 456

Supreme Court of Canada · 1933 · Canada

Issue: Whether a child born after a negligent injury to the mother can recover damages for prenatal harm.
Held: Yes, the child is entitled to recover damages for prenatal injuries suffered while in utero, as the child in utero is a distinct legal person.
Ratio: A child born alive can recover damages for injuries negligently inflicted before birth, as the child is considered a legal person from the time of injury.

tort-law

Torts

Negligence – prenatal injury

Paris v. Stepney Borough Council

basic

[1951] AC 367

House of Lords · 1951 · United Kingdom

Issue: Whether the employer owes a higher standard of care to an employee known to be particularly vulnerable to a specific injury.
Held: Yes, the employer must take into account the employee's known special vulnerability when determining the standard of care.
Ratio: The standard of reasonable care is higher when the defendant knows that the plaintiff is particularly vulnerable to a specific harm; the extent of the foreseeable risk includes the gravity of the potential harm.

tort-law

Torts

Negligence – standard of care / known vulnerabilities

Wyong Shire Council v. Shirt

intermediate

(1980) 146 CLR 40

High Court of Australia · 1980 · Australia

Issue: Whether the Council was negligent for creating a risk of harm that was not obviously serious.
Held: Yes, the Council was negligent because it failed to take reasonable precautions against a risk of harm that was not far-fetched or fanciful.
Ratio: A risk is foreseeable if it is not far-fetched or fanciful; the standard of care requires a calculation of the probability of harm, likely seriousness, burden of precautions, and social utility.

tort-law

Torts

Negligence – standard of care / risk assessment

Rivers v. Katz

basic

67 A.D.2d 131, 414 N.Y.S.2d 563 (1979)

Supreme Court of New York, Appellate Division · 1979 · United States (New York)

Issue: Whether the continued detention of an insanity acquittee without periodic review violates the constitutional right to liberty.
Held: Yes, the patient is entitled to a hearing to determine ongoing dangerousness; continued detention without review constitutes false imprisonment.
Ratio: A person acquitted by reason of insanity cannot be held indefinitely without periodic judicial review of their dangerousness; such confinement would amount to false imprisonment.

tort-law

Torts

False imprisonment – mental health

Scott v. London and St Katherine Docks Co.

advanced

(1865) 3 H&C 596, 159 ER 665

Court of Exchequer · 1865 · England and Wales

Issue: Whether the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur can apply to allow an inference of negligence from the fall itself.
Held: Yes, because the accident was of a kind that would not normally occur without negligence, and the instrument was under the defendant's control.
Ratio: Res ipsa loquitur applies when the accident is of a type that ordinarily does not happen without negligence, the instrumentality was within the defendant's exclusive control, and there is no other explanation.

tort-law

Torts

Negligence – res ipsa loquitur

United States v. Reliable Transfer Co.

basic

421 U.S. 397

Supreme Court of the United States · 1975 · United States

Issue: Whether the maritime rule of equally dividing property damage when both parties are at fault should be replaced by a rule requiring apportionment of damages in proportion to the relative fault of each party.
Held: Yes. The equal division rule is replaced with a comparative fault rule. Damages are to be apportioned according to the respective degrees of fault of the parties. The 75/25 split in this case should be applied, not an equal division.
Ratio: The admiralty rule of equally dividing damages in mutual fault collisions is archaic and unfair. It discourages settlement and does not reflect modern tort principles of comparative negligence. The proper rule is that each party bears liability for property damage in proportion to its percentage of fault. This rule also applies in all cases of mutual fault maritime property damage, not only collision cases.

maritime-admiralty-law

collision

comparative-negligence

damages

Moragne v. States Marine Lines, Inc.

basic

398 U.S. 375

Supreme Court of the United States · 1970 · United States

Issue: Whether a cause of action for wrongful death exists under general maritime law, notwithstanding the absence of a statutory remedy, and whether such a remedy is precluded by the Death on the High Seas Act or state law.
Held: Yes. A cause of action for wrongful death does exist under general maritime law. The Harrisburg is overruled. Neither the Death on the High Seas Act nor state wrongful death statutes preclude this remedy. The Court held that maritime law should provide a uniform federal remedy for wrongful death within territorial waters.
Ratio: The general maritime law, as a body of federal common law, may evolve to recognize new causes of action consistent with modern policy and justice. The ancient rule from The Harrisburg, based on a default of the common law, is no longer tenable. Maritime law must provide a remedy for wrongful death caused by a maritime tort, whether the death occurs on the high seas or in territorial waters. Such a remedy is not preempted by federal or state statutes unless Congress clearly states otherwise.

maritime-admiralty-law

wrongful-death

maritime-tort

general-maritime-law

Mullins v. NCAA

advanced

2004 WL 1574691

Court of Appeals of Ohio · 2004 · United States (Ohio)

Issue: Whether the NCAA owes a duty of care to student-athletes regarding concussion safety guidelines.
Held: Yes; the NCAA may have a duty to promulgate reasonable safety guidelines, but the claim was dismissed on other grounds.
Ratio: Sports governing bodies may be subject to tort liability for failure to implement reasonable safety protocols, but proximate cause must be shown.

sports-law

Sports Law

Tort liability for sports concussion (failed baseline test)

MacPherson v. Buick Motor Co.

tort law

217 N.Y. 382 (1916)

New York Court of Appeals · 1916 · New York, United States

Issue: Could the manufacturer owe a duty without contractual privity?
Held: Yes. Manufacturers owe duties for products likely to be dangerous if negligently made.
Ratio: Manufacturers can owe negligence duties to foreseeable users of dangerous products.

tort law

consumer protection law

Palsgraf v. Long Island Railroad Co.

tort law

248 N.Y. 339 (1928)

New York Court of Appeals · 1928 · New York, United States

Issue: Was the railroad liable to an unforeseeable plaintiff?
Held: No. The risk to Palsgraf was not reasonably foreseeable.
Ratio: Negligence liability requires a duty to the plaintiff based on foreseeable risk.

tort law

Donoghue v. Stevenson

tort law

[1932] AC 562

House of Lords · 1932 · United Kingdom

Issue: Did a manufacturer owe a duty of care to an ultimate consumer without privity?
Held: Yes. A manufacturer can owe a duty to foreseeable consumers.
Ratio: A person must take reasonable care to avoid acts likely to injure closely and directly affected neighbors.

tort law

consumer protection law

Caparo Industries plc v. Dickman

tort law

[1990] 2 AC 605

House of Lords · 1990 · United Kingdom

Issue: When does a duty of care arise for negligent misstatement?
Held: No duty was owed to investors for the takeover purpose.
Ratio: The Caparo test asks foreseeability, proximity, and fairness for novel duty situations.

tort law

professional responsibility law

Rylands v. Fletcher

tort law

(1868) LR 3 HL 330

House of Lords · 1868 · United Kingdom

Issue: Can liability attach without negligence for escape of dangerous things?
Held: Yes, under the rule for non-natural use and escape.
Ratio: Strict liability may apply for escape of dangerous things from non-natural land use.

tort law

environmental law

Palsgraf v. Long Island Railroad Co.

intermediate

248 N.Y. 339 (1928)

New York Court of Appeals · 1928 · United States (New York)

Issue: Whether a defendant is liable for unforeseeable injuries to a plaintiff outside the zone of danger.
Held: No duty was owed to Mrs. Palsgraf because her injury was not a foreseeable consequence of the conductor's act.
Ratio: The scope of duty in negligence is limited to foreseeable plaintiffs; a defendant is not liable for unforeseeable consequences to unforeseeable persons.

legal-history

Legal History

Tort law — Proximate cause and duty of care

Prosecutor v. Furundžija

basic

IT-95-17/1-T, Trial Chamber Judgment of 10 December 1998

International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (Trial Chamber) · 1998 · International (ICTY)

Issue: Whether the prohibition of torture is a peremptory norm (jus cogens) and the legal consequences that follow.
Held: The prohibition of torture is a peremptory norm, giving rise to obligations erga omnes and universal jurisdiction.
Ratio: Jus cogens norms, such as the prohibition of torture, are hierarchically superior and cannot be derogated from by treaty; they trigger universal jurisdiction and individual criminal responsibility.

public-international-law

Public International Law

Jus Cogens – Torture – International Criminal Law

Reyes v. Al-Malki (Supreme Court of Canada)

basic

2017 SCC 61, [2017] 2 SCR 599

Supreme Court of Canada · 2017 · Canada

Issue: Whether Saudi Arabia's sovereign immunity extends to a former diplomat accused of torture and human trafficking, and whether such acts are outside the scope of diplomatic functions.
Held: The alleged acts of torture and forced labour are not functions of a diplomatic mission; the diplomat and his wife were not immune from civil suit under the State Immunity Act.
Ratio: The commission of torture or slavery cannot be part of a diplomat's official functions; state immunity does not shield individuals for such conduct, and the commercial activity exception may apply to domestic servitude.

transnational-law

Transnational Law

State immunity; torture; habeas corpus

Jus Cogens / Peremptory Norm Cases: Prosecutor v. Furundžija

basic

IT-95-17/1-T, Trial Chamber Judgment of 10 December 1998

International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (Trial Chamber) · 1998 · International – ad hoc tribunal

Issue: Whether the prohibition on torture had the status of a peremptory norm (jus cogens) in international law.
Held: The Trial Chamber held that the prohibition on torture has achieved the status of a peremptory norm.
Ratio: The prohibition on torture is a peremptory norm (jus cogens) from which no derogation is permitted; it imposes obligations erga omnes and triggers universal jurisdiction under certain conditions.

public-international-law

Public International Law

International criminal law – torture – jus cogens

Malwarebytes, Inc. v. Enigma Software Group USA, LLC

intermediate

894 F.3d 904

United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2018 · United States

Issue: Whether algorithmic blocking by a security software company is tortious interference with business relations.
Held: Dismissed on grounds of Noerr-Pennington immunity, but note on algorithmic blocking.
Ratio: Using software to block another product is not inherently tortious; the focus is on whether the blocking is based on improper motive.

robotics-and-ai-law

Robotics and AI Law

Interference with algorithmic operation – tortious interference

Yurish v. Sinclair Broadcast Group, Inc.

basic

20-0722

West Virginia Supreme Court · 2021 · Jurisdiction from source

Issue: The precise issue is not discernible from the snippet. Candidates should verify the source to determine the legal question, which may involve state tort law, employment law, or constitutional issues in the broadcast context.
Held: This is a source-linked holding checkpoint. The snippet does not reveal the dispositive holding. Candidates should confirm the full judgment before relying on it.
Ratio: The source record does not provide a specific legal rule. Candidates should examine the opinion for any doctrinal statements relevant to broadcast regulation, such as the application of defamation law to broadcast news.

broadcast-regulation

Broadcast Regulation

State tort law

Broadcaster liability

Yurish v. Sinclair Broadcast Group, Inc.

basic

20-0722

West Virginia Supreme Court · 2021 · Jurisdiction from source

Issue: How might Yurish v. Sinclair Broadcast Group, Inc. help a student research, compare, or distinguish an issue in Intellectual Property Law, and what must be verified in the linked source before citation?
Held: Source-linked holding checkpoint: verify the dispositive holding in the linked source. This entry intentionally avoids inventing a rule that may not belong to Intellectual Property Law.
Ratio: Extract the ratio from the linked judgment by identifying the legal test, material facts, and reason for the outcome. Treat this record as a research lead unless the source confirms a direct Intellectual Property Law rule.

intellectual-property-law

Intellectual Property Law

broadcast-regulation

Broadcast Regulation

Yurish v. Sinclair Broadcast Group, Inc.

basic

20-0722

West Virginia Supreme Court · 2021 · Jurisdiction from source

Issue: How might Yurish v. Sinclair Broadcast Group, Inc. help a student research, compare, or distinguish an issue in Wills, Trusts, and Estates, and what must be verified in the linked source before citation?
Held: Source-linked holding checkpoint: verify the dispositive holding in the linked source. This entry intentionally avoids inventing a rule that may not belong to Wills, Trusts, and Estates.
Ratio: Extract the ratio from the linked judgment by identifying the legal test, material facts, and reason for the outcome. Treat this record as a research lead unless the source confirms a direct Wills, Trusts, and Estates rule.

wills-trusts-and-estates

Wills, Trusts, and Estates

broadcast-regulation

Broadcast Regulation

Yurish v. Sinclair Broadcast Group, Inc.

basic

20-0722

West Virginia Supreme Court · 2021 · Jurisdiction from source

Issue: How might Yurish v. Sinclair Broadcast Group, Inc. help a student research, compare, or distinguish an issue in Wine Law, and what must be verified in the linked source before citation?
Held: Source-linked holding checkpoint: verify the dispositive holding in the linked source. This entry intentionally avoids inventing a rule that may not belong to Wine Law.
Ratio: Extract the ratio from the linked judgment by identifying the legal test, material facts, and reason for the outcome. Treat this record as a research lead unless the source confirms a direct Wine Law rule.

wine-law

Wine Law

broadcast-regulation

Broadcast Regulation

Babcock v. Jackson

advanced

12 N.Y.2d 473

New York Court of Appeals · 1963 · United States (New York)

Issue: Whether New York should apply the foreign guest statute or its own law when both parties are from New York.
Held: New York law applies because the contact with Ontario was fortuitous and the parties' domicile and insurance were in New York.
Ratio: In a tort case, the law of the jurisdiction with the greatest interest in the issue (often the common domicile) governs.

private-international-law

Private International Law

Choice of law for torts - interest analysis

A v. Secretary of State for the Home Department (No 2)

advanced

[2006] UKHL 7

House of Lords · 2006 · United Kingdom

Issue: Whether evidence obtained by torture, even if not by British officials, is admissible in proceedings before SIAC.
Held: Evidence obtained by torture, by any state, is inadmissible in all UK proceedings; the prohibition is absolute.
Ratio: The common law and the Human Rights Convention absolutely prohibit the use of evidence obtained by torture, regardless of who obtained it, as contrary to the rule of law and fundamental justice.

transnational-law

Transnational Law

Torture evidence; rule of law; human rights

Boys v. Chaplin (Australia)

basic

(2002) 210 CLR 491

High Court of Australia · 2002 · Australia

Issue: Whether the lex loci delicti governs in Australia or the proper law of the tort.
Held: Australia adopts the lex loci delicti rule (place of the tort) as the primary rule, subject to displacement if the connection to another forum is substantially greater.
Ratio: In Australia, the law of the place of the tort ordinarily applies, but may be displaced if the case has a stronger connection to another jurisdiction.

private-international-law

Private International Law

Choice of law for torts - Australian approach

Kadic v. Karadzic

basic

70 F.3d 232 (2d Cir. 1995)

United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1995 · United States

Issue: Whether federal courts have subject matter jurisdiction over international law claims against a non-state actor for genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity.
Held: Federal courts have jurisdiction; even non-state actors can be liable for genocide and war crimes under international law.
Ratio: International law imposes individual liability for certain crimes (genocide, war crimes, torture) regardless of state action; the Alien Tort Statute provides jurisdiction.

public-international-law

Public International Law

Universal Jurisdiction – Alien Tort Statute – International Crimes

Lauritzen v. Larsen

advanced

345 U.S. 571

Supreme Court of the United States · 1953 · United States

Issue: Whether the Jones Act applies to a foreign seaman on a foreign ship in a foreign port.
Held: No, the Jones Act does not apply because the ship's flag, seaman's nationality, and place of injury are foreign.
Ratio: Choice of law in maritime torts is determined by a multifactor test including flag, allegiance, and place of wrong.

maritime-admiralty-law

Maritime/Admiralty Law

Comparative and exam strategy: Choice of law in maritime torts

Liversidge v Anderson

basic

[1942] AC 206 (HL)

House of Lords · 1942 · United Kingdom

Issue: Whether the words 'if the Secretary of State has reasonable cause to believe' in regulation 18B create an objective or subjective condition: i.e., is the Home Secretary's belief reviewable by the courts, or is it sufficient that he states that he has reasonable cause?
Held: By a 4-1 majority, the House of Lords held that the condition was subjective: it was enough that the Home Secretary himself believed that he had reasonable cause, and the court could not inquire into the existence of reasonable cause. Only mala fides (bad faith) could vitiate the order.
Ratio: During wartime, courts should not substitute their judgment for the executive's on matters of national security. The words 'if satisfied' or 'if he has reasonable cause to believe' in a regulation conferring wide executive powers may be construed as imposing a subjective condition, especially when the power is related to national security. The court will only examine whether the minister has acted in good faith, not whether his belief was objectively reasonable.

legal-history

executive-power

war-powers

rule-of-law

Athletic Sports Ass'n v. Dow Chemical Co.

advanced

2010 WL 11493563

United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas · 2010 · United States (Texas)

Issue: Whether a manufacturer of synthetic turf can be held strictly liable for injuries resulting from a product defect under Texas law.
Held: Yes; strict liability applies if the product is unreasonably dangerous and the defect caused the injury.
Ratio: Manufacturers of sports surfaces and equipment can be held strictly liable for defects that make the product unreasonably dangerous, even if no privity exists.

sports-law

Sports Law

Manufacturer liability for defective sports equipment

Phillips v. Eyre

basic

(1870) LR 6 QB 1

Court of Queen's Bench · 1870 · United Kingdom

Issue: Under what conditions can an English court entertain an action for a tort committed abroad.
Held: The action lies only if the act is not justifiable by the law of the place where it was done and is actionable under English law.
Ratio: For a foreign tort to be actionable in England, the act must be (1) actionable under English law and (2) not justifiable under the law of the foreign place.

private-international-law

Private International Law

Choice of law for torts - double actionability

R v. Bow Street Metropolitan Stipendiary Magistrate, ex parte Pinochet Ugarte (No 3)

intermediate

[2000] 1 AC 147, [1999] UKHL 17

House of Lords · 1999 · United Kingdom

Issue: Whether a former head of state enjoys immunity from extradition for acts of torture, and whether the UK could exercise universal jurisdiction.
Held: Immunity for former heads of state is limited to official acts; systematic torture cannot be an official act; Pinochet could be extradited for torture committed after the UK ratified the Torture Convention.
Ratio: A former head of state has no immunity for crimes under international law, such as torture, that are prohibited by treaty and custom; universal jurisdiction permits prosecution by any state.

transnational-law

Transnational Law

Universal jurisdiction; former head of state immunity; torture

Rocky Mountain Sports & Chiropractic v. Natl. Academy of Sports Medicine

basic

2002 WL 31750320

United States District Court for the District of Utah · 2002 · United States (Utah)

Issue: Whether a non-compete clause in a sports professional certification agreement is enforceable under Utah law.
Held: No; the clause was overly broad in geographic scope and duration and was not necessary to protect legitimate business interests.
Ratio: Non-compete agreements in the sports industry must be narrowly tailored to protect legitimate business interests without imposing unreasonable restraints on trade.

sports-law

Sports Law

Non-compete clauses in sports certification contracts

Boys v. Chaplin

intermediate

[1971] AC 356

House of Lords · 1969 · United Kingdom

Issue: Whether the double actionability rule applies inflexibly or may be displaced by the proper law of the tort.
Held: The rule can be flexibly applied; in this case, the proper law (England) displaced the strict rule to allow recovery for pain and suffering.
Ratio: Where the parties share a common domicile or the tort has close connections with a single jurisdiction, the proper law of the tort may displace the double actionability rule.

private-international-law

Private International Law

Choice of law for torts - double actionability exception

United Australia Ltd v. Barclays Bank Ltd

intermediate

[1941] AC 1

House of Lords · 1941 · United Kingdom

Issue: Whether a plaintiff who has a right to sue in tort can also bring an action for money had and received (restitution) and whether previous inconsistent proceedings bar the restitution claim.
Held: The House of Lords held that the plaintiff could choose the restitution claim and was not estopped by earlier inconsistent proceedings as long as no final judgment was obtained.
Ratio: A plaintiff may elect to waive the tort and sue in restitution for the benefit received, and will not be barred by earlier inconsistent proceedings if no final judgment and satisfaction has been obtained.

restitution-law

Restitution Law

Alternative claims in contract and restitution, waiver of tort