How to sue (Part 1) How to find cites on Fraud, bad faith, & others

#1 09-04-2004, 07:54 AM

Let's discuss how to find cites on non-statutory torts.

TheBlackTruth · #2 09-04-2004, 08:44 AM

Excellent! ummmm whats a non-statutory tort? (other than what i would presume is a tort not defined by any statute?) And what are their significance?

I'm assuming its best for a Sovereign to stay away from statutory support, but you know what they say about assumption

-BT[/color]

#3 09-04-2004, 10:09 AM

Ok, Maybe my terminology was off.

I mean stuff that isn't listed in statutes, but can be sued for.

to be more precise: mala in se, and not necessarily mala prohibita.

TheBlackTruth · #4 09-04-2004, 10:16 AM

Your terminology looks good to me! I just don't REALLY know yet why to be particularly interested in these typees of torts and how to initiate an action pursuant to one.

I mean. .. i can hypothesize, but I'd have no idea for sure so it'd be nice to have it explained

-BT[/color]

#5 09-04-2004, 10:21 AM

Just look up the words I just mentioned in your blacks law dictionary.

TheBlackTruth · #6 09-04-2004, 11:35 AM

Yup, I already have a good understanding of Mala In Se (evil in and of itself) and Mala Prohibita (evil specific to a violation of enacted law or statute). The discussion i was trying to evoke for clarification is why are we interested in Mala In Se ("non-statutory torts") as opposed to Mala Prohibita ("statutory violations")?

That seems to be a discussion of theory and one would need more than a Black's to come to a conclusion. Anyone care to enlighten me?

-BT[/color]

#7 09-04-2004, 01:33 PM

BT,

Things that are prohibited by statute are not a mystery as to where to get ammo. Go pull the annotated statutes and whammo, There's your ammo.

What I want to know is how to get case law for things that aren't statutory, like fraud, bad faith, etc.

HB

TheBlackTruth · #8 09-04-2004, 01:37 PM

hmmm, I would ask Weis that question. He seems to be able to find anything. As far as Case searching, thats a skill I think i am weakest in, unfortunately.

-BT[/color]

weishaupt1776 · #9 09-04-2004, 03:15 PM

[color=black][b]Sounds like a cool project. I'll try doing some searches. It seems like the phrase "common law" "non-statutory" may be interchangeable.

weishaupt1776 · #10 09-04-2004, 04:46 PM

[color=black][b]O.K. -I was able to scounge this up HERE

Scroll down to

CONGRESSIONAL FINDINGS AND PURPOSES Section 2 of Pub. L. 100-694

The only problem is that it protects federal employees from being liable for torts even under the common law!!! However, If you read closely it says they are immune "within the scope of their employment".So as soon as they step out of their jurisdiction, us Sovereigns have 2 words for them - "NO IMMUNITY"

If y'all want type this out EXACTLY like this on google -

site:caselaw.lp.findlaw.com "common law torts"

"common law torts" fraud "Supreme Court decision"

site:constitution.org tort

"common law tort liability" "supreme court"

So Far I've found that there are general three types of torts: intentional misconduct, negligence, and strict liability I found that HERE. Download that sucker

Use those as search terms, too

Another general term for tort law is Personal injury law HERE At least READ the 3rd, 5th & 6th paragraphs.They want you to enter your @#$%^&n' zip.

Here's a quick read outline it's a PDF HERE

However there is a difference between Tort Liability & Contract Liability. A small nugget HERE with some case cites.

This is an exhaustive study of Restitution Law with tons of common law concepts & case cites HERE

My search terms are highlighted. When you download, you have to add ".htm" to it.

Here's a supplement for equitable remedies HERE

Finally-a case where the United States court of appeals used common law tort liability in favor of the plaintiffs HERE Scroll down to the DISCUSSION title

Check this out -<blockquote><center>Hawaii Supreme Court Case No. 15465 </center>"HRS 294-6(a) appears to mandate that the Smiths are unable to bring a separate, independent suit for their alleged emotional distress. However, because the provisions of HRS 294-6 are in derogation of principles of common law tort liability, they "must be strictly construed and, where it does not appear that there was a legislative purpose in the statute to supersede the common law, the common law applies." Doi v. Hawaiian Ins. & Guar. Co., Ltd., 6 Haw. App. 456, 465, 727 P.2d 884, 890 (1986); see Burns Int'l Sec. Servs., Inc. v. Department of Transp., 66 Haw. 607, 611, 671 P.2d 446, 449 (1983); Fonseca v. Pacific Constr. Co., Ltd., 54 Haw. 578, 585, 513 P.2d 156, 160 (1973)"</blockquote>And this :<blockquote><CENTER>U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals HOESLY v CHICAGO CENTRAL & PACIFIC RR </CENTER>"A cause of action based on a violation of these regulations is susceptible to the limits of Illinois common law tort liability, including the rule of open and obvious dangers. . . The Illinois Supreme Court decided that to impose liability without regard to contributory negligence would be to impose strict liability, which was inappropriate without a plain intent to do so on the part of the legislature. See id. at 327. The Public Utilities Act is "in derogation of the common law," and as such the court insisted on applying common law tort limits unless it plainly appeared that the legislature intended to abrogate those limits . . . regulations at issue did not establish a standard of care different from that of common law tort. . . where there is no duty there is no liability"</blockquote>Please correct me if I'm wrong, but if so called "statutory/regulatory torts" have no legislative intent to abrograte the common law, we can rephrase the legalese into a common law tort or common law contract liability claim.