Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Discipline
-
- Law and Society (2)
- Privacy Law (2)
- Science and Technology Law (2)
- Administrative Law (1)
- Air and Space Law (1)
-
- Civil Procedure (1)
- Civil Rights and Discrimination (1)
- Communications Law (1)
- Computer Law (1)
- Constitutional Law (1)
- Contracts (1)
- Disability Law (1)
- Human Rights Law (1)
- Intellectual Property Law (1)
- Internet Law (1)
- Law and Politics (1)
- Legal Ethics and Professional Responsibility (1)
- Legal Profession (1)
- Legal Remedies (1)
- Property Law and Real Estate (1)
- Sexuality and the Law (1)
- Transportation Law (1)
- Keyword
-
- ADA (1)
- Affiar (1)
- Affiars (1)
- Americans With Disablities Act (1)
- Ashley Madison (1)
-
- Cheating (1)
- Civil Law (1)
- Civil Rights (1)
- Dating Website (1)
- Death (1)
- Disability Rights (1)
- Disabled (1)
- Discrimination (1)
- Drones (1)
- Drones in our skies (1)
- Georgia (1)
- Infidelity (1)
- Legal Malpractice (1)
- Malpractice (1)
- Marriage (1)
- Nuisance (1)
- Online (1)
- Privacy (1)
- Ride Share (1)
- State Law (1)
- Statute of Limitations (1)
- Suicide (1)
- Uber (1)
- Unmanned Aircraft (1)
Articles 1 - 4 of 4
Full-Text Articles in Torts
Forty-Eight States Are Probably Not Wrong: An Argument For Modernizing Georgia’S Legal Malpractice Statute Of Limitations, Ben Rosichan
Forty-Eight States Are Probably Not Wrong: An Argument For Modernizing Georgia’S Legal Malpractice Statute Of Limitations, Ben Rosichan
Georgia State University Law Review
The legal profession is largely self-regulated, and each state has a bar association charged with creating and enforcing basic standards of professionalism and competence for attorneys. Unfortunately, attorneys do not always adhere to these standards. In Georgia, the State Bar can address attorney misconduct through remedial measures up to and including disbarment. The State Bar cannot, however, compensate wronged clients through monetary damages.Thus, some wronged clients must resort to a lawsuit for legal malpractice where a financial recovery is necessary to make the client whole again.
The statute of limitations for legal malpractice claims should not be so restrictive that …
Keep Out! The Efficacy Of Trespass, Nuisance And Privacy Torts As Applied To Drones, Hillary B. Farber
Keep Out! The Efficacy Of Trespass, Nuisance And Privacy Torts As Applied To Drones, Hillary B. Farber
Georgia State University Law Review
A few years ago one might have seen a small object flying overhead without any idea what it could be. Today, it is fairly commonplace to see drones flying around our neighborhood skies. The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) predicts there will be seven million drones populating our skies by 2020. In 2015 hobbyists, recreational users, and commercial businesses purchased unmanned aerial vehicles, commonly referred to as drones, in record-breaking numbers. Estimates reveal that over 4.3 million drones were sold worldwide in 2015. Trade industry experts predicted that more than 2.8 million drones would be sold in the U.S. in 2016 …
Having An Affair May Shorten Your Life: The Ashley Madison Suicides, Sakinah N. Jones
Having An Affair May Shorten Your Life: The Ashley Madison Suicides, Sakinah N. Jones
Georgia State University Law Review
Ashley Madison is an online dating service originally designed for people in committed relationships who want to cheat on their partners. In 2015, the website claimed to be “100% discreet.” Ashley Madison’s FAQs promised that its users would never compromise their “safety, privacy or security” and would never have to reveal their identities unless they chose to.
Ashley Madison’s concept attracted over forty million ostensibly anonymous members to its site. In July 2015, a group calling itself The Impact Team (Impact) hacked into Ashley Madison’s parent company, Avid Life Media, Inc. (Avid Life), breaching its security walls and reaching directly …
Disability Rights In The Age Of Uber: Applying The Americans With Disabilities Act Of 1990 To Transportation Network Companies, Rachel Reed
Georgia State University Law Review
Within the past year, individual plaintiffs and disability rights organizations have initiated a number of lawsuits against Uber, and similar companies like Lyft, alleging violations of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (Title III). In each of these cases, the plaintiffs’ success turns on affirmatively answering one significant threshold question: Whether Uber, or a similar entity, falls within the scope of Title III. Traditional taxi companies fall squarely within the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990’s (ADA) coverage under 42 U.S.C. § 12184 (§ 12184), which governs private companies that provide transportation services. Given the similarities …