The Supreme Court of Massachusetts held that a landlord was not
liable under a state statute making unlawful any «unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce» where he leased an apartment to a young, childless couple without disclosing the possibility of lead paint in the apartment.
Not exact matches
«Every person who,
under color of any
statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any
State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United
States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be
liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress, except that in any action brought against a judicial officer for an act or omission taken in such officer's judicial capacity, injunctive relief shall not be granted unless a declaratory decree was violated or declaratory relief was unavailable.»
In its Taricco I judgment (analysed previously by M. Lassalle on this blog), the ECJ decided that national courts must disapply the rules of
statutes of limitations periods for the duration of criminal proceedings pending before a court, if such rules were
liable to have an adverse effect on fulfilling by the Member
States their obligations
under Article 325 TFEU.
The Oregon court began by noting that
under the
state's recreational use
statute, a landowner who opens up his land for the recreational use of the general public is not generally
liable for injuries sustained by the public.
A New Jersey appellate court has considered whether a salesperson could be
liable under the
state's consumer fraud
statute for misstating the name of the community in which a property was located.