Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Boim v. Holy Land Foundation for Relief & Development

Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit

Decided December 3, 2008No. 05-1815, 05-1816, 05-1821, 05-1822Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in part

ROVNER, Circuit Judge,

with whom WILLIAMS, Circuit Judge, joins, concurring in part and dissenting in part.1

At this late stage in the litigation, we are now turning to a fundamental question: Are we going to evaluate claims for terrorism-inflicted injuries using traditional legal standards, or are we going to rewrite tort law on the ground that “terrorism is sui generis ”? Ante at 698. My colleagues in the majority have opted to “relaxf ]” — I would say eliminate — the basic tort requirement that causation be proven, believing that “otherwise there would be a wrong and an injury but no remedy…

2Cases cited29 opinions

  1. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, Administratrix of the Estate of CatrettSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
  2. Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1993
  3. Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Products, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 2000
  4. Blakely v. WashingtonSupreme Court of the United States · 2004
  5. Buckley v. ValeoSupreme Court of the United States · 1976

24 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API