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

Case Citations [1] (July 2021 - April 2022)

handle is hein.ali/relwtrts0337 and id is 1 raw text is: TORTS DIVISION ONE. INTENTIONAL HARMS TO PERSONS, LAND AND CHATTELS CHAPTER 1. MEANING OF TERMS USED THROUGHOUT THE RESTATEMENT OF TORTS § 12. Reason to Know; Should Know D.N.M.2020. Cit. in sup. Mother and personal representative of deceased minor child brought, among other things, a strict-products-liability claim in state court against retail store and store manager, alleging that store manager was in charge of the premises at the time plaintiffs purchased a toy that caused child to asphyxiate. After removal, this court denied plaintiffs' motion to remand, holding that non-diverse store manager was fraudulently joined, because plaintiffs could not establish a strict-liability claim against her. Citing Restatement of Torts § 12 and Restatement Second of Torts § 12, the court explained that plaintiffs failed to allege that store manager knew or had reason to know that the toy was defective such that it could harm child. Schmidt v. International Playthings LLC, 503 F.Supp.3d 1060, 1122. CHAPTER 2. INTENTIONAL INVASIONS OF INTERESTS IN PERSONALITY TOPIC 4. THE INTEREST IN FREEDOM FROM CONFINEMENT § 35. False Imprisonment U.S.2021. Cit. in sup. Former suspect filed a § 1983 action against state police officers, alleging that they used excessive force when she fled from them by shooting at her 13 times, striking her twice. The district court granted summary judgment for officers, finding that suspect was not seized because she eluded arrest after being shot, and the court of appeals affirmed. This court vacated and remanded, holding that the application of physical force to the body of a person with the intent to restrain was a seizure, even if the force did not succeed in subduing the person. The court cited Restatement of Torts §§ 35 and 41 in reasoning that the element of confinement required for false imprisonment demanded no more than that the defendant had for one moment taken possession of the plaintiff's person, and the touching alone of the person against whom legal authority was asserted was sufficient to constitute confinement by arrest when the authority was valid. Torres v. Madrid, 141 S.Ct. 989, 1000. § 41. Confinement by Asserted Legal Authority U.S.2021. Quot. in sup.; com. (h) quot. in sup. Former suspect filed a § 1983 action against state police officers, alleging that they used excessive force when she fled from them by shooting at her 13 times, striking her twice. The district court granted summary judgment for officers, finding that suspect was not seized because she eluded arrest after being shot, and the court of appeals affirmed. This court vacated and remanded, holding that the application of physical force to the body of a person with the intent to restrain was a seizure, even if the force did not succeed in subduing the person. The court cited COPYRIGHT ©2022 By THE AMERICAN LAW INSTITUTE All rights reserved A-\-L1 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