(98) In the speech-claims context, the Court has found state action because the common-law action executed by a judge has coercively transferred money from one party to another due to the content of their speech.
In some states, statutes validate or define the common-law actions of alienation of affection and criminal conversation.
However, it is a fact of life that most SMEs, and many larger businesses, do not bother to register their name as a trademark, in which case you have to rely upon common-law action
to prevent what is called 'passing-off'.
it is apparent that the common-law action
recognized as appropriate by the decision in Elliott v.
Connecticut General Life Insurance Co., 197 A.2d 83 (1963),8 a Connecticut court held that "[a]rbitration is not a common-law action
, and the institution of arbitration proceedings is not the bringing of an action under any of our statutes of limitation." In a concurring opinion, an Idaho court in Moore v.
The minority view that a common-law action
may be brought advances the idea that the injury complained of is not covered by the workers' compensation remedy because it does not arise in the course of the employment, because it was intended rather than accidental; or because the penalty sections of the compensation act, unlike the tort, do not allow recovery when the defendant relies on responsible medical testimony in delaying payment.
In a case like Snyder, involving a common-law action, "the state" is at once everywhere and nowhere.
Sullivan (6) in 1964, the Supreme Court had not applied the First Amendment to state common-law actions. (7) But Sullivan was a uniquely appropriate vehicle for doing so.
environmental law, common-law actions
were based on real harms, not on technical violations of a regulation, and provided real remedies to damaged parties.
The Court began its analysis by noting the resemblance between the 10b-5 cause of action and common-law actions
for deceit and misrepresentation, stressing the requirement that a plaintiff suffer "actual damages." The Court observed that the common-law has long required plaintiffs in fraud actions to show that they "suffered actual economic loss," 125 S.Ct.
Justice Stevens held that Congress "was primarily concerned with the problem of specific, conflicting State statutes and regulations rather than the general duties enforced by common-law actions