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

Case Citations [1] (July 2020 - August 2021)

handle is hein.ali/resctlw0159 and id is 1 raw text is: CONFLICT OF LAWS 2D Generally C.A.1, 2020. Cit. generally in case cit. in sup. General contractor brought a claim for fraud against Maryland subcontractor, alleging that defendant made false statements that all of its obligations with respect to the parties' dredging project in Massachusetts were paid in full, causing plaintiff to make payments to defendant relying on the false representations. The district court entered judgment on a jury verdict for plaintiff. This court affirmed, holding, inter alia, that the district court did not err in applying Massachusetts law to plaintiff's claim. The court explained that Massachusetts followed the functional choice-of-law principles set forth by the Restatement Second of Conflict of Laws, and determined that Massachusetts was the state with the most significant relationship to the occurrence and the parties, because the dredging project was in Massachusetts, at least some of the injury took place in Massachusetts, plaintiff made payments to defendant in Massachusetts, and Massachusetts had a strong interest in the matter. Hisert on Behalf of H2H Associates, LLC v. Haschen, 980 F.3d 6, 7. N.D.Ill.2020. Cit. generally in case cit. in disc. Employee, a California resident who sustained injuries while working on a construction site in South Korea, brought, among other things, California common- law fraud claims against employer headquartered in Illinois, alleging that defendant falsely told plaintiff that he would receive his previous position or a similar position once he returned from medical leave under the Family and Medical Leave Act, when in fact defendant had no intention to do so. This court denied in part defendant's motion to dismiss, holding that plaintiff alleged sufficient facts establishing his claim for common-law fraud under Illinois law. The court noted that performing a choice-of-law analysis under the Restatement Second of Conflict of Laws to determine which state's law to apply was unnecessary, because the elements and standards of pleading for common-law fraud claims in Illinois and California were identical such that applying one law or the other would not change the outcome of the case. Elzeftawy v. Pernix Group, Inc., 477 F.Supp.3d 734, 787. N.D.Ill.2020. Cit. generally in disc. After the bankruptcy court ordered subcontractor to return monies paid to it by general contractor who declared bankruptcy shorty after making the payment, subcontractor sued sureties, alleging that it was entitled to payment by defendants pursuant to the parties' payment bond. This court granted plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment and denied defendants' motion for summary judgment, holding that, as a matter of first impression, the Illinois statute of limitations for plaintiff's claim on the payment bond began to run when plaintiff was ordered to repay monies obtained from general contractor. The court noted that it did not need to perform a choice-of-law analysis under the Restatement Second of Conflict of Laws to determine which jurisdiction's substantive law to apply, because the parties only discussed statute-of-limitations issues, and the court generally applied the statute of limitations of the forum state. Myers Controlled Power, LLC v. Fidelity and Deposit Company of Maryland, 476 F.Supp.3d 710, 713. N.D.Ohio, 2020. Cit. generally in case quot. in disc. Owners and operators of a coal-fired power plant sued insurer of contractor that agreed to provide services at the plant, after insurer refused to defend or indemnify owners and operators in connection with an incident in which two employees of contractor were injured and two more were killed as a result of being exposed to toxic hydrogen sulfide gas while COPYRIGHT ©2021 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