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

Case Citations [1] (April 2023 - August 2023)

handle is hein.ali/relagcy0138 and id is 1 raw text is: THE AMERICAN LAW INSTITUTE Spring 2023 Citations AGENCY CHAPTER 7. LIABILITY OF PRINCIPAL TO THIRD PERSON; TORTS TOPIC 2. LIABILITY FOR AUTHORIZED CONDUCT OR CONDUCT INCIDENTAL THERETO TITLE B. TORTS OF SERVANTS WHO IS A SERVANT § 220. Definition Miss.App.2022. Com. (e) quot. in sup. Employer appealed a decision by the state labor department's board of review, alleging that the board erred in affirming a finding by an administrative-law judge that former maintenance worker, who performed work for plaintiff, was entitled to unemployment benefits, because he was never plaintiff's employee. The trial court affirmed. This court affirmed, holding that there was substantial evidence supporting the administrative-law judge's finding that former maintenance worker was plaintiff's employee for the purposes of unemployment benefits. Citing Restatement of Agency § 220, Comment e, the court explained that, although former maintenance worker performed carpentry-related labor for plaintiff, his lack of specialized maintenance and carpentry skills weighed towards a finding that he was not an independent contractor. Handyman House Techs, LLC v. Mississippi Department of Employment Security, 337 So.3d 681, 690. SCOPE OF EMPLOYMENT § 228. General Statement Mont.2022. Cit. in diss. op. Member of a Native American tribe sued the United States under the Federal Tort Claims Act, after a police officer with the Bureau of Indian Affairs threatened to arrest her unless she had sex with him and then sexually assaulted her while responding to a call at her home. The district court granted summary judgment for defendant. Answering a question certified by the court of appeals, this court held that the officer was not acting outside the scope of his employment as a matter of law when he sexually assaulted tribal member, and that the question was one for a trier of fact. The dissent cited Restatement of Agency § 228 in arguing that the officer's actions were not in the scope of his employment because he was not acting with any motive or purpose other than his own personal sexual gratification. L.B. v. United States, 515 P.3d 818, 830, 832. COPYRIGHT C2023 By THE AMERICAN LAW INSTITUTE All rights reserved Printed in the United States of America 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