Common-Law Action

• New York's Highest Court Holds That Common Law Causes Of Action Are Not Preempted By The Martin Act

• Mondaq Business Briefing
• United States Law Articles in English

• Talik v. Fed. Marine Terminals, Inc. (Slip Opinion), Slip Opinion No. 2008-Ohio-937

Federal law – Preemption of state law – Longshore and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act, Section 901 et seq., Title 33, U.S.Code – Federal act preempts Ohio common-law action for employer intentional tort based on substantial certainty – Ohio common-law intentional tort based on substantial certainty poses obstacle to accomplishment and execution of full purposes of federal act.

• Ohio Supreme Court

• The New Jersey Constitution: positive rights, common law entitlements, and state action.

• Albany Law Review
• Vol. 69 Nbr. 2, March 2006

• Common-Law Action

• West's Encyclopedia of American Law
• Com–Dor

• New Tricks for Old Dogs: The Tinker Standard Applied to Cyber-Bullying

[...] if educators fail to take action may they be held liable under common law tort claims or even Title LX?

• Journal of Law and Education
• Vol. 38 Nbr. 3, July 2009

• The right to a jury trial is not guaranteed in an action nonexistent at common law.

• Illinois Bar Journal
• Vol. 97 Nbr. 10, October 2009

• Illinois Appellate Court Says Plaintiffs Can't Sue for Negligent Disclosure

Former public school employees could not bring a common law action for the negligent disclosure of their personal information, an Illinois appellate court has ruled in affirming a dismissal. The plaintiffs are 1,750 former Chicago public school employees whose personal information was mistakenly included in a mass mailing of informational packets for COBRA health insurance enrollment. The personal information included the plaintiffs' Social Security numbers and addresses.

• Lawyers USA
• February 16, 2011

• Finra Panel Awards Elderly Investor Treble Damages Under Financial Elder Abuse Law

A panel of Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) arbitrators, made up of two public arbitrators and one non-public arbitrator, awarded a trust for a 96-year-old investor treble damages under the California Financial Elderly Abuse law, and assessed the brokerage firm and brokers sanctions for discovery abuse. The statement of claim, filed Mar 17, 2009, by David Wolfson Living Trust, alleged numerous common law and statutory causes of action against StockCross Financial Services of Beverly Hills and brokers Thomas Cooper and Peter Boorn, including elder abuse statute and violations of the Business and Professional Code. The panel concluded that the evidence showed that the respondents deliberately withheld documents and information requested by the claimant and that the failure ...

• Dispute Resolution Journal
• Vol. 65 Nbr. 1, February 2010

• Merrill Lynch v. Dabit: The Case of the Scorned Broker and the Death of the State Securities Fraud Class Action Suit

Introduction. II. Federal and State Securities Laws and Congress's Blurring of the Lines. A. Federal Securities Laws and Section 10(b). B. State Securities Laws and Common Law Causes of Action. C. Congressional Shifts in the Balance. 1. The PSLRA of 1995. 2. The NSMIA of 1996. 3. SLUSA of 1998. III. The Scorned Broker: The Dabit Case and the Federal Circuit Split. A. The Dabit Case. B. The Majority Rule. 1. Presumption of Congressional Knowledge of Settled Judicial Interpretation. 2. No Congressional Intent to Go Beyond Closing the Federal Flight Loophole. C. The Minority Rule. 1. Congressional Intent to Go Beyond Closing the Federal Flight Loophole. 2. Policy Considerations Supporting Preemption. 3. Complete Preemption of State Securities Fraud Class Actions. IV. The Death of the St...

• Louisiana Law Review
• Nbr. 67-1, October 2006

• Bickers v. W. & S. Life Ins. Co. (Slip Opinion), Slip Opinion No. 2007-Ohio-6751

Employment – Wrongful discharge – No common-law action exists for wrongful discharge in violation of public policy for employee who is terminated while receiving workers’ compensation – Cause of action for retaliatory discharge under R.C. 4123.90 is exclusive remedy for employees claiming wrongful termination in violation of rights provided by Workers’ Compensation Act.

• Ohio Supreme Court