Abstracts - faqs.org

Abstracts

Law

Search abstracts:
Abstracts » Law

CGL wars; sudden or just unexpected?

Article Abstract:

Comprehensive general liability (CGL) policies received different interpretations in the supreme courts of Ohio and Florida, making different sides liable for the costs of environmental cleanup. CGL policies commonly used between 1970 and 1985 typically exclude liability for 'sudden and accidental' pollution, and the meaning of 'sudden' was at issue in these cases. The Ohio court ruled that 'sudden' must mean quickly or the word would not add anything to the phrase 'sudden and accidental,' but the Florida court found the phrase 'sudden and accidental' to be legally ambiguous.

Author: Goldberg, Stephanie B.
Publisher: American Bar Association
Publication Name: ABA Journal
Subject: Law
ISSN: 0747-0088
Year: 1992
Liability for environmental damages, Liability insurance, Insurance law

User Contributions:

Comment about this article or add new information about this topic:

CAPTCHA


Fourth Amendment; Illinois curbs grand juries

Article Abstract:

The Illinois Supreme Court limited the use of grand jury subpoenas in Will County Grand Jury v. Marquez, citing the right to privacy in the Illinois Constitution. The grand jury was investigating a murder case and wanted physical evidence including hair combings from suspects who had not yet been charged. The court ruled probable cause must exist before evidence as invasive as hair combings could be secured.

Author: Goldberg, Stephanie B.
Publisher: American Bar Association
Publication Name: ABA Journal
Subject: Law
ISSN: 0747-0088
Year: 1993
Grand jury, Grand juries, Evidence, Criminal, Criminal evidence

User Contributions:

Comment about this article or add new information about this topic:

CAPTCHA


Getting personal

Article Abstract:

The California Court of Appeal allowed a preliminary injunction of a psychiatric test used by Target stores to screen security guard applicants. The test asks questions on religious beliefs and sexual preferences and practices. The court held that Target had not justified the test's use, and that the state's constitutional right-to-privacy amendment 'can only be overcome by a compelling argument.'

Author: Goldberg, Stephanie B.
Publisher: American Bar Association
Publication Name: ABA Journal
Subject: Law
ISSN: 0747-0088
Year: 1992
Department stores, Target Stores Inc., Employment tests

User Contributions:

Comment about this article or add new information about this topic:

CAPTCHA


Subjects list: Cases, Privacy, Right of, Right of privacy
Similar abstracts:
  • Abstracts: Undoing done deals; outsiders object to settlements in asbestos, derivative suits. Putting the brakes on junk analysis; a tire case pumps up judicial power over opinion testimony
  • Abstracts: MD&A audits: a new tool for boards of directors and underwriters. Corporate Web sites - business and financial information
  • Abstracts: Intratextualism. Foreword: the document and the doctrine. Hercules, Herbert, and Amar: the trouble with intratextualism
  • Abstracts: Reevaluation of estate justifies equitable recoupment of income tax. Remainder interest excludable from gross estate
  • Abstracts: Personal residences now offer more tax shelter. Debt can puncture the dividends-received deduction. Mitigation offers escape from expired limitations period
This website is not affiliated with document authors or copyright owners. This page is provided for informational purposes only. Unintentional errors are possible.
Some parts © 2025 Advameg, Inc.