The Supreme Court agreed that the invasion of privacy claim didn't survive. But it ordered more hearings on the claim of emotional distress by her mother, Patricia Cannady, and the claim that St. Vincent could be held liable for actions of its employees. The court said defendants argued that the claims were based on the same facts as the invasion of privacy claim and should thus be dismissed. But the court said the defendants had cited no law to support the premise that the different claims couldn't be based on the same conduct.
Here's the opinion. Justice Paul Danielson concurred, but issued a separate opinion on the basis for part of the ruling.
Showing 1-14 of 14
Paint tort reform as a "One-Size-Fits-All" "Government regulation" that empowers a "Bureaucrat" to determine how…
"But there is something odd about how it veers off toward the confluence of Cadron…
http://gizmodo.com/5914311/56-years-of-dea…
That links to an amazing map that documents some…
Cover Story / Arkansas Reporter / The Week That Was / Smart Talk / The Insider / The Observer / Editorial / Max Brantley / Ernest Dumas / Gene Lyons / Bob Lancaster / Words / Guest Writer / Letters
A&E Feature / To-Do List / In Brief / Movie Reviews / Music Reviews / Theater Reviews / A&E News / Art Notes / Graham Gordy / Books / Media / Dining Reviews / Dining Guide / What's Cookin' / Calendar / The Televisionist / Movie Listings / Gallery Listings