Credit: VadimGuzhva/Adobe Stock Appellate Ruling Opens Door for Emotional Distress Claims That Might Have Been Dismissed
"The key is the element of foreseeability. Whenever you foreseeably cause emotional damage to someone, you could be liable for the damage you cause," said plaintiffs lawyer Morgan Browning.
April 01, 2021 at 06:45 PM
4 minute read
In a ruling involving a deceased pet, a New Jersey appeals court has made recovery easier for certain plaintiffs seeking compensation for infliction of emotional distress.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View All
Jury Awards Horizon $2.4 Million for Fraudulent Billing Against 3 NJ Health Care Providers
2 minute read
Virtua Drug Tests Pregnancy Patients Without Consent, NJ Attorney General Alleges in New Suit
3 minute read
NJ Supreme Court Considers Ability to Add Nonparty Doctors to Med Mal Verdict Sheets
4 minute read
Trending Stories
Who Got The Work
Joseph G. Petrosinelli, C. Bryan Wilson and Angela Pyo of Williams & Connolly have entered appearances for Motive Technologies in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The complaint, filed Aug. 27 in California Northern District Court by Shaw Keller LLP and Kirkland & Ellis on behalf of Samsara Inc., assets three patents related to dashcam video footage technology. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge James Donato, is 4:24-cv-06049, Samsara Inc. v. Motive Technologies Inc.
Who Got The Work
Moez M. Kaba, Christina Von der Ahe Rayburn, Dennis Ojogho and Yegor Fursevich from Hueston Hennigan have entered appearances for Amazon.com in a pending trade secrets lawsuit. The complaint was filed Aug. 26 in New York Southern District Court by Merchant & Gould on behalf of Select Research Ltd., a 3-D body imaging developer involved in the use of human health calculator body volume index (BVI). The suit contends that Amazon improperly embodied and incorporated SRL's trade secrets in their 'Halo' and 'Made For You' products. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jesse M. Furman, is 7:24-cv-06419, Select Research Ltd. v. Amazon.Com, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan and Irell & Manella have stepped in to defend Foresight Diagnostics in a pending trade secrets lawsuit. The action, which is sealed, was filed Aug. 29 in California Northern District Court by Richards, Layton & Finger and Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Eumi K. Lee, is 5:24-cv-06117, Roche Molecular Systems, Inc. et al v. Foresight Diagnostics Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
David A. Robinson, John F. Wood and Brendan H. Connors from Holland & Knight and attorneys from Proskauer Rose have entered appearances for Scientific Drilling International, S. Westley Shedd, Pamela Pierce and other defendants, respectively, in a pending shareholder lawsuit. The suit was filed Aug. 29 in California Central District Court by Umhofer, Mitchell & King on behalf of Matthew D. Van Steenwyk and Gretchen M. Van Steenwyk-Marsh. The suit accuses the controlling shareholder of Scientific Drilling of self-dealing. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Fernando L. Aenlle-Rocha, is 2:24-cv-07401, Matthew D. Van Steenwyk et al v. Kedrin E. Van Steenwyk et al.
Who Got The Work
Constangy, Brooks, Smith & Prophete partners Laura A. Balson and Ashley L. Orler have entered appearances for Avfuel Corporation in a pending data breach class action. The case, filed Aug. 30 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Kopelowitz Ostrow PA, centers on a 2024 cyberattack that allegedly exposed the personally identifying and private data of 'potentially billions of individuals.' The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Mark A. Goldsmith, is 2:24-cv-12274, Clark III v. Avfuel Corporation.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250
