<?xml version='1.0' encoding='UTF-8'?><rss xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" xmlns:openSearch="http://a9.com/-/spec/opensearchrss/1.0/" xmlns:blogger="http://schemas.google.com/blogger/2008" xmlns:georss="http://www.georss.org/georss" xmlns:gd="http://schemas.google.com/g/2005" xmlns:thr="http://purl.org/syndication/thread/1.0" version="2.0"><channel><atom:id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8234509198059680333</atom:id><lastBuildDate>Thu, 29 Aug 2024 04:40:48 +0000</lastBuildDate><category>torts</category><category>assault</category><category>battery</category><category>law</category><category>contracts</category><category>promissory estoppel</category><category>trover</category><category>Arne Huhtala commenced this action</category><category>George Edgin and Gloria Floyd</category><category>Little Rock</category><category>Ransford Austin</category><category>Virginia</category><category>action brought by Massey</category><category>asportation</category><category>battery against prison warden</category><category>bullets</category><category>cars</category><category>civil procedure</category><category>conversion</category><category>convicts</category><category>court</category><category>court relied on Mackley v Allstate Insurance</category><category>detinue</category><category>ejectment</category><category>fraud</category><category>jail</category><category>judgment against Jacob Luce</category><category>negligence</category><category>people</category><category>personal</category><category>personal jurisdiction</category><category>remedies</category><category>replevin</category><category>summary judgment</category><category>trespass</category><category>trial</category><title>Torts Master Blog</title><description></description><link>http://torts-master.blogspot.com/</link><managingEditor>noreply@blogger.com (Torts Master)</managingEditor><generator>Blogger</generator><openSearch:totalResults>6</openSearch:totalResults><openSearch:startIndex>1</openSearch:startIndex><openSearch:itemsPerPage>25</openSearch:itemsPerPage><item><guid isPermaLink="false">tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8234509198059680333.post-13252693251396282</guid><pubDate>Wed, 05 Nov 2008 17:46:00 +0000</pubDate><atom:updated>2008-11-05T13:39:59.273-05:00</atom:updated><category domain="http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#">civil procedure</category><category domain="http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#">contracts</category><category domain="http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#">court relied on Mackley v Allstate Insurance</category><category domain="http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#">fraud</category><category domain="http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#">law</category><category domain="http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#">negligence</category><category domain="http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#">personal jurisdiction</category><category domain="http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#">promissory estoppel</category><category domain="http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#">Ransford Austin</category><category domain="http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#">summary judgment</category><category domain="http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#">torts</category><title>Austin v. Trotters Corp.</title><atom:summary type="text">Austin v. Trotters Corp., 815 S.W.2d 951 (Mo. App. S.D. 1991).Plaintiffs Joy Austin (&quot;Joy&quot;), and Ransford Austin, her husband, filed this action against defendant Trotter&#39;s Corporation (&quot;Trotter&#39;s&quot;). The petition alleged that on December 18, 1987, Joy was an invitee in defendant Trotter&#39;s restaurant in Springfield and sustained a fall as a result of Trotter&#39;s negligence. Joy sought damages for </atom:summary><link>http://torts-master.blogspot.com/2008/11/austin-v-trotters-corp.html</link><author>noreply@blogger.com (Torts Master)</author></item><item><guid isPermaLink="false">tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8234509198059680333.post-6272069679862598018</guid><pubDate>Tue, 04 Nov 2008 16:28:00 +0000</pubDate><atom:updated>2008-11-04T11:42:33.115-05:00</atom:updated><category domain="http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#">Arne Huhtala commenced this action</category><category domain="http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#">assault</category><category domain="http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#">battery</category><category domain="http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#">contracts</category><category domain="http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#">personal</category><category domain="http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#">promissory estoppel</category><category domain="http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#">torts</category><title>Huhtala v. Travelers Ins. Co.</title><atom:summary type="text"> Huhtala v. Travelers Ins. Co., 257 N.W.2d 640, 401 Mich. 118 (Mich. 1977).      Plaintiff Bonnie Cummings was injured in an automobile accident. The owner of the automobile in which Cummings was riding as a passenger was insured by defendant Travelers Insurance Company. Three years, two and one-half months after the accident, Cummings and her father, Arne Huhtala, commenced this action against </atom:summary><link>http://torts-master.blogspot.com/2008/11/huhtala-v-travelers-ins-co.html</link><author>noreply@blogger.com (Torts Master)</author></item><item><guid isPermaLink="false">tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8234509198059680333.post-388546375788979387</guid><pubDate>Tue, 04 Nov 2008 15:21:00 +0000</pubDate><atom:updated>2008-11-04T11:03:06.459-05:00</atom:updated><category domain="http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#">assault</category><category domain="http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#">battery</category><category domain="http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#">bullets</category><category domain="http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#">cars</category><category domain="http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#">George Edgin and Gloria Floyd</category><category domain="http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#">jail</category><category domain="http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#">law</category><category domain="http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#">people</category><category domain="http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#">torts</category><title>Edgin v. Talley</title><atom:summary type="text">Edgin v. Talley, 276 S.W. 591, 169 Ark. 862 (Ark. 1925).   Actions by George Edgin and by Goldia Floyd, minors, by next friend, against Claud Talley and another. Judgment for defendants and plaintiffs appeal. Affirmed as to plaintiff Edgin, and reversed and remanded as to plaintiff Floyd.   George Edgin and Goldia Floyd, minors, by next friend, instituted separate actions at law against Claud </atom:summary><link>http://torts-master.blogspot.com/2008/11/edgin-v-talley.html</link><author>noreply@blogger.com (Torts Master)</author></item><item><guid isPermaLink="false">tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8234509198059680333.post-4685722734973756797</guid><pubDate>Tue, 04 Nov 2008 04:44:00 +0000</pubDate><atom:updated>2008-11-03T23:54:30.643-05:00</atom:updated><category domain="http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#">assault</category><category domain="http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#">battery</category><category domain="http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#">battery against prison warden</category><category domain="http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#">convicts</category><category domain="http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#">court</category><category domain="http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#">law</category><category domain="http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#">torts</category><title>Battery</title><atom:summary type="text">The common law tort of battery is an intentional contact that is harmful or offensive, made to the plaintiff’s person or to some logical extension of the plaintiff’s person, without consent or other privilege. It differs from the common law crime of battery. The tort of battery requires an actual contact. An assault on the other hand is to put someone in the apprehension of a harmful or offensive</atom:summary><link>http://torts-master.blogspot.com/2008/11/battery.html</link><author>noreply@blogger.com (Torts Master)</author></item><item><guid isPermaLink="false">tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8234509198059680333.post-7334859727446089536</guid><pubDate>Tue, 04 Nov 2008 03:37:00 +0000</pubDate><atom:updated>2008-11-03T22:51:08.151-05:00</atom:updated><category domain="http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#">action brought by Massey</category><category domain="http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#">assault</category><category domain="http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#">battery</category><category domain="http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#">ejectment</category><category domain="http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#">law</category><category domain="http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#">Little Rock</category><category domain="http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#">replevin</category><category domain="http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#">torts</category><category domain="http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#">trial</category><category domain="http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#">trover</category><title>Ward v. Blackwood</title><atom:summary type="text">Ward v. Blackwood, 3 S.W. 624 (Ark. 1887).       This action was brought by Massey, in his life-time, against Ward, for damages caused by an assault and battery committed upon him by Ward on the twenty-fifth of August, 1880. Massey having died since its commencement, it was revived in the name of Blackwood, as his administrator. Ward answered, and alleged that, at the time the assault and battery</atom:summary><link>http://torts-master.blogspot.com/2008/11/ward-v-blackwood.html</link><author>noreply@blogger.com (Torts Master)</author></item><item><guid isPermaLink="false">tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8234509198059680333.post-8226171197400710114</guid><pubDate>Tue, 04 Nov 2008 02:21:00 +0000</pubDate><atom:updated>2008-11-03T21:28:42.423-05:00</atom:updated><category domain="http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#">asportation</category><category domain="http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#">assault</category><category domain="http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#">battery</category><category domain="http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#">conversion</category><category domain="http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#">detinue</category><category domain="http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#">judgment against Jacob Luce</category><category domain="http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#">law</category><category domain="http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#">remedies</category><category domain="http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#">torts</category><category domain="http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#">trespass</category><category domain="http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#">trover</category><category domain="http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#">Virginia</category><title>Elliot v. Porter</title><atom:summary type="text">Elliot v. Porter, 35 Ky. 299 (Ky. App. 1837).PORTER having obtained a verdict and judgment against Elliot, for six hundred dollars, for the conversion of one hundred and twenty-five barrels of salt — the latter now seeks a reversal on two grounds:       First. He insists that the Circuit Court erred, to his prejudice, in refusing to permit him to read a certified copy of the record of an action </atom:summary><link>http://torts-master.blogspot.com/2008/11/elliot-v-porter.html</link><author>noreply@blogger.com (Torts Master)</author></item></channel></rss>