Law School

The tort of negligent infliction of emotional distress (NIED) is a controversial cause of action, which is available in nearly all U.S. states but is severely constrained and limited in the majority of them. The underlying concept is that one has a legal duty to use reasonable care to avoid causing emotional distress to another individual. If one fails in this duty and unreasonably causes emotional distress to another person, that actor will be liable for monetary damages to the injured individual. The tort is to be contrasted with intentional infliction of emotional distress in that there is no need to prove intent to inflict distress. That is, an accidental infliction, if negligent, is sufficient to support a cause of action. History. NIED began to develop in the late nineteenth century, but only in a very limited form, in the sense that plaintiffs could recover for consequential emotional distress as a component of damages when a defendant negligently inflicted physical harm upon them. By 1908, most industrial U.S. states had adopted the "physical impact" form of NIED. However, NIED started developing into its more mature and more controversial form in the mid-20th century, as the new machines of the Second Industrial Revolution flooded the legal system with all kinds of previously unimaginable complex factual scenarios. Courts began to allow plaintiffs to recover for emotional distress resulting from negligent physical injuries to not only themselves, but other persons with whom they had a special relationship, like a relative. The first step, then, was to remove the requirement of physical injury to the actual plaintiff while keeping the requirement of physical injury to someone. In the 1968 landmark decision of Dillon v Legg, the Supreme Court of California was the first court to allow recovery for emotional distress alone – even in the absence of any physical injury to the plaintiff – in the particular situation where the plaintiff simply witnessed the death of a close relative at a distance, and was not within the "zone of danger" where the relative was killed. A 2007 statistical study commissioned by the Court found that Dillon was the most persuasive decision published by the Court between 1940 and 2005; Dillon has been favorably cited and followed by at least twenty reported out-of-state appellate decisions, more than any other California appellate decision. The next step after Dillon was to make optional the element of another person (so that the injury could be to anything where it would be reasonably foreseeable that such injury would cause some person emotional distress). The first such case was Rodrigues v State, in which the Supreme Court of Hawaii held that plaintiffs could recover for negligent infliction of emotional distress as a result of negligently caused flood damage to their home. This is generally considered to be the true birth of NIED as a separate tort. Twelve years after Dillon, California expanded NIED again, by holding that a relative could recover even where the underlying physical injury was de minimis (unnecessary medications and medical tests) if the outcome was foreseeable (the breakup of the plaintiffs' marriage as a result of the defendants' negligent and incorrect diagnosis of a sexually transmitted disease). In 1994, the U.S. Supreme Court for the first time recognized NIED as part of federal common law, by holding that railroad workers could pursue NIED claims against their employers under the Federal Employers Liability Act. The Court recognized only the pre-Dillon form of NIED, though, in that the plaintiff had to be within a zone of danger to recover in the absence of physical injury. In 1999, Hawaii took NIED even further by expressly holding that "damages may be based solely upon serious emotional distress, even absent proof of a predicate physical injury."

General Welfare Clause to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States; Of all the limitations upon the power to tax and spend, the General Welfare Clause appears to have achieved notoriety as one of the most contentious. The dispute over the clause arises from two distinct disagreements. The first concerns whether the General Welfare Clause grants an independent spending power or is a restriction upon the taxing power. The second disagreement pertains to what exactly is meant by the phrase "general welfare." The two primary authors of The Federalist Papers set forth two separate, conflicting interpretations: James Madison advocated the ratification of the Constitution in The Federalist and at the Virginia ratifying convention upon a narrow construction of the clause, asserting that spending must be at least tangentially tied to one of the other specifically enumerated powers, such as regulating interstate or foreign commerce, or providing for the military, as the General Welfare Clause is not a specific grant of power, but a statement of purpose qualifying the power to tax. Alexander Hamilton, only after the Constitution had been ratified, argued for a broad interpretation which viewed spending as an enumerated power Congress could exercise independently to benefit the general welfare, such as to assist national needs in agriculture or education, provided that the spending is general in nature and does not favor any specific section of the country over any other. Although The Federalist was not reliably distributed outside of New York, the essays eventually became the dominant reference for interpreting the meaning of the Constitution as they provided the reasoning and justification behind the Framers' intent in setting up the federal government. While Hamilton's view prevailed during the administrations of Presidents Washington and Adams, historians argue that his view of the General Welfare Clause was repudiated in the election of 1800, and helped establish the primacy of the Democratic-Republican Party for the subsequent 24 years. This assertion is based on the motivating factor which the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions played upon the electorate; the Kentucky Resolutions, authored by Thomas Jefferson, specifically criticized Hamilton's view. Further, Jefferson himself later described the distinction between the parties over this view as "almost the only landmark which now divides the federalists from the republicans...." Associate Justice Joseph Story Associate Justice Joseph Story relied heavily upon The Federalist as a source for his Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States. In that work, Story excoriated both the Madisonian view and a previous, strongly nationalistic view of Hamilton's which was rejected at the Philadelphia Convention. Ultimately, Story concluded that Thomas Jefferson's view of the clause as a limitation on the power to tax, given in Jefferson's opinion to Washington on the constitutionality of the national bank, was the correct reading. However, Story also concluded that Hamilton's view on spending, articulated in his 1791 Report on Manufactures, is the correct reading of the spending power.

Property Deeds registration is a land management system whereby all important instruments which relate to the common law title to parcels of land are registered on a government-maintained register, to facilitate the transfer of title. The system has been used in some common law jurisdictions and continues to be used in some jurisdictions, including most of the United States. It is being replaced by Torrens systems in many jurisdictions. Australia, Ireland as well as most Canadian provinces have converted from deeds registries to Torrens titles. Some Canadian provinces have never operated a deeds registry and have always used Torrens titles. Other Canadian provinces which have converted from a deeds registry to Torrens titles have operated both systems in conjunction until the Torrens system gradually superseded the deeds registry system, as was the case in Nova Scotia and New Brunswick during the 2000s. In the Canadian province of Ontario, electronic registration led to Ontario's version of Torrens title covering almost all land, but the past deeds registration still governs some issues. Hong Kong and the Canadian provinces of Quebec, Newfoundland and Labrador and Prince Edward Island are the only provinces left which still operate a deeds registration system. In contrast to the Torrens system in which basically the one who registered in a land registry as owner of a piece or parcel of land has an indefeasible title of the land, deeds registration system is merely a registration of all important instruments related to that land. In order to establish one's title to the land, a person (or usually their purchaser's attorney) will ascertain, for example: all the title documents have been properly executed, "a chain of title" is established, for example, the proper ownerships from the granting of the land from the government to the current owner, and, there are no encumbrances on the land that probably will harm the title of the land. Estoppel is a common law doctrine which, when it applies, prevents a litigant from denying the truth of what was said or done. The doctrine of estoppel by deed (also known as after-acquired title) is a particular estoppel doctrine in the context of real property transfers. Under the doctrine, the grantor of a deed (generally the seller of a piece of real property) is estopped (barred) from denying the truth of the deed. The doctrine may only be invoked in a suit arising out of the deed, or involving a particular right arising out of the deed. While rooted in warranty deeds, estoppel by deed has been extended to affect quitclaim deeds if the deed represents that the grantor actually had title.  Generally, a quitclaim is a formal renunciation of a legal claim against some other person, or of a right to land. A person who quitclaims renounces or relinquishes a claim to some legal right, or transfers a legal interest in land. Originally a common law concept dating back to Medieval England, the expression is in modern times mostly restricted to North American law, where it often refers specifically to a transfer of ownership or some other interest in real property. Commonly, quitclaims are used in situations where a grantor transfers any interest they have in property to a recipient (the grantee) but without offering any guarantee as to the extent of that interest. There may even be no guarantee that the grantor owns the property or has any legal interest in it whatsoever. Specific situations where a precise definition of the grantor's interest (if any) may be unnecessary include property transferred as a gift, to a family member, or into a business entity. The legal instrument by which the transfer is effected may be known as a quitclaim deed or quitclaim agreement. Details of the instrument itself, and the typical circumstances of use, vary by U.S. state.

Murder is the unlawful killing of another human without justification or valid excuse, especially the unlawful killing of another human with malice aforethought. This state of mind may, depending upon the jurisdiction, distinguish murder from other forms of unlawful homicide, such as manslaughter. Manslaughter is killing committed in the absence of malice, brought about by reasonable provocation, or diminished capacity. Involuntary manslaughter, where it is recognized, is a killing that lacks all but the most attenuated guilty intent, recklessness. Most societies consider murder to be an extremely serious crime, and thus that a person convicted of murder should receive harsh punishments for the purposes of retribution, deterrence, rehabilitation, or incapacitation. In most countries, a person convicted of murder generally faces a long-term prison sentence, a life sentence, or capital punishment. Use of the term. In many countries, in news reports, out of concern for being accused of defamation, journalists are generally careful not to identify a suspect as a murderer until the suspect is convicted of murder in a court of law. After arrest, for example, journalists may instead write that the person was "arrested on suspicion of murder", or, after a prosecutor files charges, as an "accused murderer". Opponents of abortion consider abortion a form of murder. In some countries, a fetus is a legal person who can be murdered, and killing a pregnant woman is considered a double homicide. Definition. The eighteenth-century English jurist William Blackstone (citing Edward Coke), in his Commentaries on the Laws of England set out the common law definition of murder, which by this definition occurs when a person, of sound memory and discretion, unlawfully kills any reasonable creature in being and under the king's peace, with malice aforethought, either express or implied. The elements of common law murder are: unlawful, killing, through criminal act or omission, of a human, by another human, and, with malice aforethought.

Specific performance is an equitable remedy in the law of contract, whereby a court issues an order requiring a party to perform a specific act, such as to complete performance of the contract. It is typically available in the sale of land law, but otherwise is not generally available if damages are an appropriate alternative. Specific performance is almost never available for contracts of personal service, although performance may also be ensured through the threat of proceedings for contempt of court. Specific performance is commonly used in the form of injunctive relief concerning confidential information or real property. While specific performance can be in the form of any type of forced action, it is usually to complete a previously established transaction, thus being the most effective remedy in protecting the expectation interest of the innocent party to a contract. It is usually the opposite of a prohibitory injunction, but there are mandatory injunctions that have a similar effect to specific performance. At common law, a claimant's rights were limited to an award of damages. Later, the court of equity developed the remedy of specific performance instead, should damages prove inadequate. Specific performance is often guaranteed through the remedy of a right of possession, giving the plaintiff the right to take possession of the property in dispute. As with all equitable remedies, orders of specific performance are discretionary, so their availability depends on its appropriateness in the circumstances. Such orders are granted when damages are not an adequate remedy and in some specific cases such as land (which is regarded as unique). Exceptional circumstances.  An order of specific performance is generally not granted if any of the following is true: Specific performance would cause severe hardship to the defendant. The contract was unconscionable. Common Law damages are readily available or the detriment suffered by the claimant is easy to substitute, then damages are adequate. The claimant has misbehaved (unclean hands). Specific performance is impossible. Performance consists of a personal service  The contract is too vague to be enforced. The contract was terminable at will (meaning either party can renege without notice). Note that consumer protection laws may disallow terms that allow a company to terminate a consumer contract at will (for example Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999) The contract required constant supervision. Mutuality was lacking in the initial agreement of the contract. The contract was made for no consideration. Specific performance will not be granted for contracts which are void or unenforceable. The exception to this (in equity) is in relation to estoppel or part performance. Where an injunction to restrain an employee from working for a rival employer will be granted even though specific performance cannot be obtained. The leading case is Lumley v Wagner, which is an English decision. Additionally, in England and Wales, under s 50 of the Senior Courts Act 1981, the High Court has a discretion to award a claimant damages in lieu of specific performance (or an injunction). Such damages will normally be assessed on the same basis as damages for breach of contract, namely to place the claimant in the position he would have been had the contract been carried out.

Negligence (Latin, negligentia) is a failure to exercise appropriate and/or ethical ruled care expected to be exercised amongst specified circumstances. The area of tort law known as negligence involves harm caused by failing to act as a form of carelessness possibly with extenuating circumstances. The core concept of negligence is that people should exercise reasonable care in their actions, by taking account of the potential harm that they might foreseeably cause to other people or property. Someone who suffers loss caused by another's negligence may be able to sue for damages to compensate for their harm. Such loss may include physical injury, harm to property, psychiatric illness, or economic loss. The law on negligence may be assessed in general terms according to a five-part model which includes the assessment of duty, breach, actual cause, proximate cause, and damages. Elements of negligence claims. Some things must be established by anyone who wants to sue in negligence. These are what are called the "elements" of negligence. Most jurisdictions say that there are four elements to a negligence action: 1. duty: the defendant has a duty to others, including the plaintiff, to exercise reasonable care, 2. breach: the defendant breaches that duty through an act or culpable omission, 3. damages: as a result of that act or omission, the plaintiff suffers an injury, and, 4. causation: the injury to the plaintiff is a reasonably foreseeable consequence of the defendant's act or omission. Some jurisdictions narrow the definition down to three elements: duty, breach and proximately caused harm. Some jurisdictions recognize five elements, duty, breach, actual cause, proximate cause, and damages. However, at their heart, the various definitions of what constitutes negligent conduct are very similar.

The Taxing and Spending Clause (which contains provisions known as the General Welfare Clause and the Uniformity Clause), Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1 of the United States Constitution, grants the federal government of the United States its power of taxation. While authorizing Congress to levy taxes, this clause permits the levying of taxes for two purposes only: to pay the debts of the United States, and to provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States. Taken together, these purposes have traditionally been held to imply and to constitute the federal government's taxing and spending power. Constitutional text. The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States; Background. One of the most often claimed defects of the Articles of Confederation was its lack of a grant to the central government of the power to lay and collect taxes. Under the Articles, Congress was forced to rely on requisitions upon the governments of its member states. Without the power to independently raise its own revenues, the Articles left Congress vulnerable to the discretion of the several State governments—each State made its own decision as to whether it would pay the requisition or not. Some states were not giving Congress the funds for which it asked by either paying only in part, or by altogether ignoring the request from Congress. Without the revenue to enforce its laws and treaties, or pay its debts, and without an enforcement mechanism to compel the States to pay, the Confederation was practically rendered impotent and was in danger of falling apart. The Congress recognized this limitation and proposed amendments to the Articles in an effort to supersede it. However, nothing ever came of those proposals until the Philadelphia Convention. Powers granted. The power to tax is a concurrent power of the federal government and the individual states. The taxation power has been perceived over time to be very broad, but has also, on occasion, been curtailed by the courts. United States v Butler stated that the clause also granted "a substantive power... to appropriate", not subject to the limitations imposed by the other enumerated powers of Congress.

Torrens title is a land registration and land transfer system, in which a state creates and maintains a register of land holdings, which serves as the conclusive evidence (termed "indefeasibility") of title of the person recorded on the register as the proprietor (owner), and of all other interests recorded on the register. Ownership of land is transferred by registration of a transfer of title, instead of by the use of deeds. The Registrar provides a Certificate of Title to the new proprietor, which is merely a copy of the related folio of the register. The main benefit of the system is to enhance certainty of title to land and to simplify dealings involving land. Its name derives from Sir Robert Richard Torrens (1814 thru 1884), who designed, lobbied for and introduced the private member's bill which was enacted as the Real Property Act 1858 in the Province of South Australia, the first version of Torrens title in the world. Torrens based his proposal on many of the ideas of Ulrich Hübbe, a German lawyer living in South Australia. The system has been adopted by many countries and has been adapted to cover other interests, including credit interests (such as mortgages), leaseholds and strata titles. Overview. The Torrens title system operates on the principle of "title by registration" (granting the high indefeasibility of a registered ownership) rather than "registration of title". The system does away with the need for proving a chain of title (for example, tracing title back in time through a series of documents). The State guarantees title, and the system is usually supported by a compensation scheme for those who lose their title due to private fraud or error in the State's operation. In most jurisdictions, there will be parcels of land which are still unregistered. The Torrens system works on three principles: 1. Mirror principle – the register reflects (mirrors) accurately and completely the current facts about title to each registered lot. This means that each dealing affecting a lot (such as a transfer of title, a mortgage or discharge of same, a lease, an easement or a covenant) must be entered on the register and so be viewable by anyone. 2. Curtain principle – one does not need to go behind the Certificate of Title as it contains all the information about the title. This means that ownership need not be proved by long complicated documents that are kept by the owner, as in the Private Conveyancing system. All of the necessary information regarding ownership is on the Certificate of Title. 3. Indemnity principle – provides for compensation of loss caused by private fraud or by errors made by the Registrar of Titles.

Corporate manslaughter is a crime in several jurisdictions, including England and Wales and Hong Kong. It enables a corporation to be punished and censured for culpable conduct that leads to a person's death. This extends beyond any compensation that might be awarded in civil litigation or any criminal prosecution of an individual (including an employee or contractor). The Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Act 2007 came into effect in the UK on 6 April 2008. Mayhem is a common law criminal offense consisting of the intentional maiming of another person. Under the law of England and Wales and other common law jurisdictions, it originally consisted of the intentional and wanton removal of a body part that would handicap a person's ability to defend themselves in combat. Under the strict common law definition, initially this required damage to an eye or a limb, while cutting off an ear or a nose was deemed not sufficiently disabling. In the many years since, the meaning of the crime expanded to encompass any type of mutilation, disfigurement, or crippling act done using any instrument. United States. Modern statutes in the U.S. define mayhem as disabling or disfiguring, such as rendering useless a member of another person's arms or legs. The injury must be permanent, not just a temporary loss. Some courts will hold even a minor battery as mayhem if the injury is not minor. Mayhem in the U.S. is a felony in all states and jurisdictions, including federal. In the states of California, Vermont and Oklahoma, mayhem is punishable by up to life imprisonment. In other states where laws defining mayhem (or maiming) are in place, the maximum punishment for mayhem is generally around 10 to 20 years, and mandatory minimum terms of imprisonment may also apply, depending on the laws of the state. If mayhem was committed in an aggravated fashion, such as in the case of where it resulted in permanent disability or disfigurement, the punishment is generally much more severe, and may even include life imprisonment. For example, simple mayhem in California is punishable by two to eight years in prison, whereas aggravated mayhem (where permanent injuries result) is punishable by up to life imprisonment.

A legal remedy, also referred to as judicial relief or a judicial remedy, is the means with which a court of law, usually in the exercise of civil law jurisdiction, enforces a right, imposes a penalty, or makes another court order to impose its will in order to compensate for the harm of a wrongful act inflicted upon an individual. In common law jurisdictions and mixed civil-common law jurisdictions, the law of remedies distinguishes between a legal remedy (e.g. a specific amount of monetary damages) and an equitable remedy (for example, injunctive relief or specific performance). Another type of remedy available in these systems is declaratory relief, where a court determines the rights of the parties to action without awarding damages or ordering equitable relief. The type of legal remedies to be applied in specific cases depend on the nature of the wrongful act and its liability. In the legal system of the United States, there exists a traditional form of judicial remedies that serve to combat juror biases caused by news coverage. The First Amendment of the United States forbids the government from censoring and restraining the freedom of expression, which allows the ever-expanding news media to influence the legal process. The entangled relationship between mass media and the legal system presents challenges to the Sixth Amendment that guarantees the rights of criminal defendants to receive fair trials. Trial-level remedies are in place to avoid pretrial publicity from affecting the fairness of a trial. To minimize the impacts of pretrial publicity, there are six kinds of judicial remedies at the disposal of judges: voir dire, change of venue, change of veniremen, continuance, admonition, sequestration. In English and American jurisprudence, there is a legal maxim (albeit one sometimes honored in the breach) that for every right, there is a remedy; where there is no remedy, there is no right. That is, lawmakers claim to provide appropriate remedies to protect rights. This legal maxim was first enunciated by William Blackstone: "It is a settled and invariable principle in the laws of England, that every right when with-held must have a remedy, and every injury its proper redress." In addition to the United Kingdom and the United States, legal remedy is a concept widely practiced in the legal system of a variety of countries, though approached differently.