Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

Law Commons

Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

Torts

PDF

Mercer University School of Law

2000

Articles 1 - 6 of 6

Full-Text Articles in Law

Torts, Deron R. Hicks, Jacob E. Daly Dec 2000

Torts, Deron R. Hicks, Jacob E. Daly

Mercer Law Review

  • Dog Bite
  • Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress
  • Premises Liability
  • Carriers
  • Products Liability
  • Bovine Jurisprudence


Three Arguments Against Mt. Healthy: Tort Theory, Constitutional Torts, And Freedom Of Speech, Michael Wells Mar 2000

Three Arguments Against Mt. Healthy: Tort Theory, Constitutional Torts, And Freedom Of Speech, Michael Wells

Mercer Law Review

Mt. Healthy City School District Board of Education v. Doyle is among the most important, and least discussed, cases in constitutional tort law. It stands for the abstract principle that the "but-for" rule of causation, which is the usual test in common-law torts, applies in constitutional tort suits as well. To understand the principle and its implications, it is helpful to have in mind a concrete example of its application, and Mt. Healthy provides as good an illustration as any other case. Doyle, a nontenured school teacher, quarreled with another teacher, with school employees, and with students. Two specific incidents …


An Essay On Texas V. Lesage, Christina B. Whitman Mar 2000

An Essay On Texas V. Lesage, Christina B. Whitman

Mercer Law Review

When I was invited to participate in this symposium, I was asked to discuss whether the causation defense developed in Mt. Healthy City School District Board of Education v. Doyle applied to cases challenging state action under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. As I argue below, it seems clear that Mt. Healthy does apply to equal protection cases. The Supreme Court explicitly so held last November in Texas v. Lesage. But the implications of Lesage go beyond questions of causation. The opinion suggests that the Court may be rethinking (or ignoring) its promise in Carey v. …


Mt. Healthy And Causation-In-Fact: The Court Still Doesn't Get It!, Sheldon Nahmod Mar 2000

Mt. Healthy And Causation-In-Fact: The Court Still Doesn't Get It!, Sheldon Nahmod

Mercer Law Review

Over fifteen years ago, I argued in a prior edition of my section 1983 treatise that the second burden-shift part of the Mt. Healthy test, articulated by the Supreme Court in 1977, should go only to damages and not to liability. I also argued that this causation-in-fact rule should not be limited to Mt. Healthy-type First Amendment employment cases, but should apply to constitutional damages actions generally and equal protection cases in particular. I remain convinced that both aspects of this position are normatively sound, even if no longer good law, in light of the Court's end-of-the-millennium decision in …


Mt. Healthy, Causation And Affirmative Defenses, Joseph Z. Fleming Mar 2000

Mt. Healthy, Causation And Affirmative Defenses, Joseph Z. Fleming

Mercer Law Review

In Mt. Healthy City School District Board of Education v. Doyle, the Supreme Court established a rule of causation to distinguish between a result caused by a constitutional violation and one not so caused by establishing "the proper test ... which likewise protects against invasion of constitutional rights without commanding undesirable consequences not necessary to the assurance of those rights." Reconciling such inconsistencies is similar to the type of situation that has confounded physicists trying to achieve a unified field theory-a theory capable of describing nature's forces within a single, all-encompassing, coherent framework. Physicists since Einstein have sought such …


Seay V. Cleveland: Resolution Of The Ministerial Discretionary Dichotomy, Franklin D. Guerrero Jr. Mar 2000

Seay V. Cleveland: Resolution Of The Ministerial Discretionary Dichotomy, Franklin D. Guerrero Jr.

Mercer Law Review

In 1992 the Georgia State Legislature passed the Georgia State Tort Claims Act ("GTCA") which waived the state's sovereign immunity. The GTCA defines "state" as the "State of Georgia and any of its offices, agencies, authorities, departments, commissions, boards, divisions, instrumentalities, and institutions" but the statute specifically excludes "counties, municipalities, school districts, other units of local government, hospital authorities, or housing and other local authorities." Under the GTCA a discretionary function or duty is specifically defined by statue. However, the common law distinction between ministerial and discretionary functions still applies to all entities exempted from the GTCA.