+- The South Pacific (https://tspforums.xyz)
+-- Forum: Waterfront District (https://tspforums.xyz/forum-3.html)
+--- Forum: Lampshade Bar and Grill (https://tspforums.xyz/forum-14.html)
+---- Forum: Hall of Spam (https://tspforums.xyz/forum-60.html)
+---- Thread: Random Article (/thread-376.html)
RE: Random Article - The Sakhalinsk Empire - 12-16-2018
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Signal_(Twice_song)
RE: Random Article - Qwert - 12-18-2018
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Vito_di_Cadore
RE: Random Article - The Solar System Scope - 01-02-2019
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falko_Wei%C3%9Fpflog
RE: Random Article - Volaworand - 01-03-2019
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_aviation_in_India
RE: Random Article - Midand - 01-03-2019
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osmore_River
RE: Random Article - The Sakhalinsk Empire - 01-04-2019
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plainfield_(soil)
RE: Random Article - Qwert - 01-07-2019
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Office_of_Federal_Procurement_Policy
RE: Random Article - Volaworand - 01-08-2019
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carlos_Pérez_(catcher)
RE: Random Article - Imperial Frost Federation - 01-09-2019
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forbidden_Broadway_Cleans_Up_Its_Act
RE: Random Article - Volaworand - 01-09-2019
Tarasoff v. Regents of the University of California, 17 Cal. 3d 425, 551 P.2d 334, 131 Cal. Rptr. 14 (Cal. 1976), was a case in which the Supreme Court of California held that mental health professionals have a duty to protect individuals who are being threatened with bodily harm by a patient. The original 1974 decision mandated warning the threatened individual, but a 1976 rehearing of the case by the California Supreme Court called for a "duty to protect" the intended victim. The professional may discharge the duty in several ways, including notifying police, warning the intended victim, and/or taking other reasonable steps to protect the threatened individual.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tarasoff_v._Regents_of_the_University_of_California