Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Keyword
-
- Bose Corp. v. Consumers Union of the United States (1)
- Carmen v. Eli Lilly & Co. (1)
- Cefalu v. Globe Newspaper Co. (1)
- Charlottesville Newspaper. v. Matthews (1)
- Chaves v. Johnson (1)
-
- Crawford v. United Steel Workers (1)
- Davis v. Wyeth Laboratories (1)
- Dun & Bradstreet v. Greenmoss Builders (1)
- Firestone v. Time (1)
- Fleming v. Moore (1)
- Gazette v. Harris (1)
- Gertz v. Robert Welch (1)
- Great Coastal Express (1)
- Inc. v. Ellington (1)
- Interspousal tort immunity (1)
- Kirk v. Michael Reese Hospital & Medical Center (1)
- Landmark Communications v. Macione (1)
- Lukaszewicz v. Ortho Pharmaceutical Corp (1)
- MacDonald v. Ortho Pharmaceutical Corp (1)
- Marcus v. Specific Pharmaceuticals (1)
- Montana (1)
- New York Times Co. v. Sullivan (1)
- Olman v. Evans (1)
- Port Packet Corp.v. Lewis (1)
- Reyes v. Wyeth Laboratories (1)
- Sterling Drug v. Cornish (1)
- Publication Type
Articles 1 - 3 of 3
Full-Text Articles in Law
Interspousal Tort Immunity In Montana, Carl W. Tobias
Interspousal Tort Immunity In Montana, Carl W. Tobias
Law Faculty Publications
Interspousal tort immunity has a lengthy, rich, and interesting history. But since 1970, courts and legislatures have been increasingly willing to abolish immunity, transforming it into a minority rule which appears destined for widespread elimination by the year 2000. Montana's recent experience is typical. In 1979, the Legislature abolished the rule for intentional torts. However, the Montana Supreme Court has retained the doctrine in the negligence context. The court has recently agreed to reconsider negligence immunity and, should it refuse to change the rule, the Legislature may well address the issue. Thus, it is now appropriate to analyze whether Montana …
Toward A Modern Defamation Law In Virginia: Questions Answered, Questions Raised, David C. Kohler
Toward A Modern Defamation Law In Virginia: Questions Answered, Questions Raised, David C. Kohler
University of Richmond Law Review
In 1964, the United States Supreme Court decided that defamatory statements are entitled to some first amendment protection. In later cases, the Court has continued to redefine the constitutional landscape of defamation, but many questions remain unanswered. In their attempts to accommodate the Supreme Court's new doctrine, the Virginia state courts have often struggled with the task of redefining their common law rules so that they are consistent with the constitutional prescriptions. Since 1985, the Virginia Supreme Court has issued five opinions attempting to clarify various aspects of defamation law in Virginia. Part I of this article examines these opinions …
Products Liability: The Continued Viability Of The Learned Intermediary Rule As It Applies To Product Warnings For Prescription Drugs, Barbara Pope Flannagan
Products Liability: The Continued Viability Of The Learned Intermediary Rule As It Applies To Product Warnings For Prescription Drugs, Barbara Pope Flannagan
University of Richmond Law Review
Judicial decisions, as well as statutory enactments, have removed many of the traditional stumbling blocks which formerly hampered an injured plaintiff's recovery against the manufacturer of a defective product. Concomitantly, the past few decades have seen a dramatic increase in the number of product liability suits brought by injured consumers directly against manufacturers. These product liability suits have involved the full range of manufactured products and have proceeded under three basic theories of recovery. While no single type of product, either because of its use or purpose, has been immune from products liability suits, some types of products have special …