About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline
LOG IN
LOG IN

Case Citations [1] (July 2017 through April 2018)

handle is hein.ali/relagcy0129 and id is 1 raw text is: AGENCY Generally N.D.W.Va.2017. Cit. generally in sup. In an action brought under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) by consumer advocate against call center and market-research firm that designed public- opinion survey, this court denied firm's summary-judgment motion, holding, inter alia, that plaintiff demonstrated sufficient evidence of standing, because unwanted telephone calls caused concrete harm, and material facts existed as to whether firm was vicariously liable for calls made by its co-defendant on its behalf. The court noted that federal courts looked to the Restatement of Agency as the source of federal agency principles and cited caselaw relying on the Restatement. Mey v. Venture Data, LLC, 245 F.Supp.3d 771, 787. CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTORY MATTERS TOPIC 1. DEFINITIONS § 1. Agency; Principal; Agent D.Kan.2017. Cit. in ftn. Cattle seller sued buyer, seeking payment for cattle that buyer's purported agent purchased on behalf of buyer at seller's livestock auction. This court denied buyer's motion to dismiss, holding that seller alleged sufficient facts that, if proven true, could support a plausible finding of a principal-agent relationship between agent and buyer, and that agent had authority to contract with seller on buyer's behalf The court noted that the Restatement of Agency defined agency and authority as separate concepts, and explained that a principal was only liable for the contracts of his or her agent if the agent was authorized to enter into those contracts on the principal's behalf Rezac Livestock Commission Company, Inc. v. Pinnacle Bank, 255 F.Supp.3d 1150, 1158. N.D.W.Va.2016. Adopted in case cit. in sup. Consumers brought actions under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act against, among others, manufacturers of home-security systems, alleging that manufacturers were vicariously liable for telemarketing calls made to consumers by authorized dealers that sold manufacturers' systems. This court granted manufacturers' motions to dismiss, holding that consumers failed to show that dealers were agents of manufacturers under principles of agency law set forth in Restatement of Agency § 1. The court explained the evidence did not support findings that dealers were subject to the control of manufacturers, that dealers were acting primarily for manufacturers' benefit, or that manufacturers turned a blind eye when they learned of dealers' illegal telephone calls. In re: Monitronics International, Inc., Telephone Consumer Protection Act Litigation, 223 F.Supp.3d 514, 521. § 8. Apparent Authority A L I wFor earlier citations, see the Appendices, Supplements, or Pocket Parts, if any, that correspond to the subject matter under examination.

What Is HeinOnline?

HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.



Contact us for annual subscription options:

Contact Us

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?

Log In

profiles profiles most