|
gptkbp:instance_of
|
gptkb:legal_case
|
|
gptkbp:area
|
constitutional law
|
|
gptkbp:argued_on
|
March 15, 2021
March 2021
|
|
gptkbp:brief_submitted
|
March 2021
|
|
gptkbp:case_number
|
21-1234
negligence claim upheld
|
|
gptkbp:case_outcome
|
affirmed lower court
|
|
gptkbp:case_significance
|
high
landmark ruling
|
|
gptkbp:case_types
|
civil rights
|
|
gptkbp:court
|
gptkb:Jane_Smith
gptkb:Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States
gptkb:United_States_Supreme_Court
gptkb:United_States_District_Court
gptkb:John_Holt
|
|
gptkbp:decided_by
|
gptkb:2021
gptkb:Justice_Smith
June 1, 2021
|
|
gptkbp:dissenting_opinion
|
gptkb:Justice_Doe
gptkb:Justice_Roe
|
|
gptkbp:docket_number
|
21-1234
|
|
gptkbp:effective_date
|
gptkb:2021
June 2021
|
|
gptkbp:eye_color
|
oral argument
|
|
https://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#label
|
Holt v. Smith
|
|
gptkbp:impact
|
legal interpretation
tort law
|
|
gptkbp:involved_parties
|
gptkb:Smith
Holt
|
|
gptkbp:is_applied_in
|
gptkb:2020
|
|
gptkbp:is_cited_in
|
123 U. S. 456
Holt v. Smith, 123 U. S. 456 (2021)
|
|
gptkbp:is_standardized_by
|
reasonable person standard
|
|
gptkbp:jurisdiction
|
gptkb:United_States
federal
|
|
gptkbp:legal_issue
|
negligence
rights of individuals
|
|
gptkbp:legal_principle
|
freedom of speech
due process
duty of care
equal protection
|
|
gptkbp:legal_representation
|
gptkb:Holt_Law_Firm
Smith Attorneys
|
|
gptkbp:legislation
|
gptkb:Tort_Reform_Act
|
|
gptkbp:oral_argument_date
|
April 2021
|
|
gptkbp:outcome
|
to be determined
plaintiff's favor
|
|
gptkbp:plot_summary
|
important case in U. S. law.
|
|
gptkbp:precedent
|
gptkb:legal_case
new standards
future cases
|
|
gptkbp:public_perception
|
gptkb:Justice_Doe
gptkb:Justice_Roe
|
|
gptkbp:related_cases
|
gptkb:Doe_v._Roe
precedent cases
|
|
gptkbp:bfsParent
|
gptkb:Sir_John_Holt
|
|
gptkbp:bfsLayer
|
5
|