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

Case Citations [1] (July 2019 - April 2020)

handle is hein.ali/relagcy0133 and id is 1 raw text is: AGENCY Generally N.D.Ill.2019. Cit. generally in case quot. in disc. Union member brought a lawsuit against union officials and insurer, seeking, inter alia, to recover compensation paid to officials during a period in which officials had allegedly embezzled funds from the union in breach of their fiduciary duty to the union. This court granted defendants' motion for summary judgment, holding that officials' actions of paying themselves compensation in excess of a salary cap, failing to inform union members of the union's financial condition, and directing the union to purchase gift cards that were subsequently distributed by officials for legal purposes did not constitute a breach of their fiduciary duty, because their actions were legal under state common law and did not violate any union regulations. The court noted that the scope of officials' fiduciary duty was drawn from the Restatement of Agency, but that whether a particular act violated the duty was defined by state common law. Kouba v. Flynn, 366 F.Supp.3d 1030, 1034. CHAPTER 11. LIABILITY OF AGENT TO THIRD PERSON TOPIC 3. TORTS § 355. Agent as Custodian Ga.App.2019. Quot. in case quot. in sup. Pedestrian brought a lawsuit against property owner and engineering firm, alleging that defendants were liable for injuries plaintiff suffered from a slip-and-fall accident on a ramp on property owner's premises. The trial court denied property owner's motion for summary judgment and granted engineering firm's motion for summary judgment. This court reversed, holding, inter alia, that there was a genuine issue of material fact as to whether engineering firm had control over the ramp, because defendants' contract obligated engineering firm to repair and maintain the premises. The court explained that engineering firm could be liable under Restatement of Agency § 355, because engineering firm was an agent of property owner who was given custodianship over the ramp, engineering firm knew that the ramp presented an undue risk of harm towards third parties, and a reasonable jury could find that engineering firm failed to use reasonable care to repair the ramp. The court also noted that engineering firm's liability was broader in scope under Restatement of Agency § 355 compared to Restatement Second of Agency § 355, because, under the Restatement of Agency, engineering firm was liable to the full extent as property owner. Stelly v. WSE Property Management, LLC, 829 S.E.2d 871, 876. CHAPTER 13. DUTIES AND LIABILITIES OF AGENT TO PRINCIPAL TOPIC 1. DUTIES COPYRIGHT 02020 By THE AMERICAN LAW INSTITUTE All rights reserved AJI Printed in the United States of America -wmn For 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