How have courts treated personal injury claims based on public nuisance?
California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from Mangini v. Aerojet-General Corp., 230 Cal.App.3d 1125, 281 Cal.Rptr. 827 (Cal. App. 1991):
11 We have no occasion to examine claims for personal injury based on public nuisance. (But see Nestle v. City of Santa Monica (1972) 6 Cal.3d 920, 937-938, 101 Cal.Rptr. 568, 496 P.2d 480.)
"The most advanced legal research software ever built."
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.
Other Questions
How has the court treated a motion for personal injury in a personal injury case? (California, United States of America)
How have courts dealt with personal injury claims in personal injury cases? (California, United States of America)
How have courts treated the issue of jurisdiction over a person in a personal injury case? (California, United States of America)
How have the courts dealt with a motion for personal injury in a personal injury case? (California, United States of America)
How have the courts treated restitution fines and court assessment fees in a personal injury case? (California, United States of America)
What is the limitation on personal injury claims by a plaintiff in a personal injury case? (California, United States of America)
How have the courts dealt with a motion for personal injury in a personal injury case? (California, United States of America)
How have the courts dealt with a motion for personal injury in a personal injury case? (California, United States of America)
How have the courts dealt with the issue of personal injury in a personal injury case? (California, United States of America)
How have the courts dealt with a motion for personal injury in a personal injury case? (California, United States of America)
