University of Memphis Digital Commons
Not a member yet
43176 research outputs found
Sort by
Residence of Dr. B.G. Henning
No full texthttps://digitalcommons.memphis.edu/picturing-memphis-images/1040/thumbnail.jp
Thanksgiving menu Naval Air Technical Training Center Memphis
No full texthttps://digitalcommons.memphis.edu/item-of-the-month-2025-11/1000/thumbnail.jp
Research for Engineering & Physical Sciences - ASTM Compass
No full textMark Reese from ASTM Compass provides an overview of how to use the database, ASTM Compass, and the ASTM Digital Library.
The ASTM Compass platform hosts a collection of industry-leading standards and technical engineering information. The collection contains ASTM\u27s 13,000 standards in more than 130 industry areas. It covers a broad range of engineering disciplines, including aerospace, biomedical, chemical, civil, environmental, geological, health and safety, industrial, materials science, mechanical, nuclear, petroleum, soil science, and solar engineering. This collection is the electronic counterpart of the print publications ASTM International standards and Annual Book of ASTM Standards
Exculsivity of Choice of Court Agreements: Party Autonomy in Forum Selection
No full textChoice of court agreements are contractual agreements where parties exercise autonomy to agree on a forum to which the parties are voluntarily subject to should a dispute arise from their commercial transactions or other civil relationships. Exclusivity is an issue concerning how a choice of court agreement is to be enforced. Presumption of exclusivity is a doctrine aimed at ensuring an effective enforcement of the agreement as such. Acceptance of the doctrine has become a growing trend internationally, as illustrated by the 2005 Hague Convention on Choice of Court Agreements. In American courts, choice of court agreements are generally presumed valid and enforceable. The underlying rationale of this presumption, however, does not always extend to exclusivity of the agreement. The resistance in the United States to the presumption of exclusivity is obviously at odds with the general practice in the international community. This Article argues that the legal framework of forum selection in the U.S. needs to be reshaped, and the exclusivity should be set as a default rule for choice of court agreements
The Restatement of Torts and Recovery for Loss of the Human-Pet Bond Aftern an Intentional Tort
No full textOwners1 of pets2 are often unable to recover for the loss of the human-pet bond when their pets are tortiously injured or killed. However, empirical research confirms the owners may experience the loss as real harm.3 Pets have an especially important role in a “stressful and frenetic” world characterized by unstable family relationships.4 Indeed, a 2015 Harris Poll found that 95% of American dog and cat owners regard their pets as family members.5 This Article seeks to explain why some courts refuse to allow recovery for loss of the human-pet bond even in cases involving intentional torts, such as conversion or trespass to chattels. Much of the explanation rests with the Restatement of Torts.6 The first and second iterations of the Restatement of Torts increased the obstacles pet owners encountered when they sought recovery for emotional harm after an intentional tort. This fact contradicts the common understanding that tort law was expanding during much of the twentieth century,7 and that tort law affords make-whole relief to achieve corrective justice.8 While a recent provision in the Restatement (Third) of Torts: Remedies makes clear that such recovery is in fact permissible,9 this Article explains why the new section may have little effect and what should be done to further clarify the law in this area Part II briefly describes the law today. It explains that many states, but not all, allow damages for injury to the human-pet bond when a pet is intentionally harmed. Those that allow recovery either recognize parasitic damages for an intentional tort to property (such as conversion or trespass to chattels) or require the plaintiff to prove the tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress (“IIED”). Few states allow recovery for the owner’s emotional distress when the harm is negligently inflicted. Courts that deny recovery use the law of remedies to limit the measure of damages and/or constrain liability with restrictive claims. Part III then recounts how this legal landscape developed, focusing particularly on recovery for loss of the human-pet bond after an intentional tort
First Baptist Church
No full texthttps://digitalcommons.memphis.edu/picturing-memphis-images/1223/thumbnail.jp
Residence of Cleland K. Smith
No full texthttps://digitalcommons.memphis.edu/picturing-memphis-images/1212/thumbnail.jp
Residence of R.P. Cary
No full texthttps://digitalcommons.memphis.edu/picturing-memphis-images/1230/thumbnail.jp