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

Restatement, Second, Torts (April 2017 through August 2017) [1] (2017)

handle is hein.ali/restate0327 and id is 1 raw text is: TORTS 2D Generally Ariz.App.2016. Cit. generally in ftn. In a negligence action brought by motorcyclist against permittee after motorcyclist collided with an electric fence that defendant had erected in accordance with the terms of its permit, this court reversed the trial court's grant of summary judgment for defendant and remanded, holding that, under Restatement Second of Torts § 386, defendant owed a duty of care to the public. The court acknowledged that Arizona courts generally followed the Restatement Second of Torts unless it was contrary to Arizona law, and determined that Arizona state-court precedent did not conflict with § 386. Johnson v. Almida Land & Cattle Company, LLC, 383 P.3d 673, 674. DIVISION ONE. INTENTIONAL HARMS TO PERSONS, LAND, AND CHATTELS CHAPTER 1. MEANING OF TERMS USED THROUGHOUT THE RESTATEMENT OF TORTS § 8. Unavoidable Accident Or.2017. Quot. in sup. Oil re-refining company appealed department of environmental quality commission's final order that assessed penalties against company for accepting hazardous waste without a proper manifest form and treated hazardous waste without a proper permit, arguing that it reasonably relied on assurances by the generator of the waste that the material it transported and treated was not a hazardous waste. The court of appeals affirmed the commission's order. Affirming, this court held that company's level of culpability was immaterial to establishing a violation of the relevant provisions. Quoting Restatement Second of Torts § 8, the court concluded that the department was authorized to bring actions for simple violations without evidence of a culpable mental state, because the commission was directed to consider a company's culpability, such as whether the cause of the violation was an unavoidable accident, negligence, or intentional act, when determining the amount of the fine to impose. Oil Re-Refining Company v. Environmental Quality Commission, 388 P.3d 1071, 1079. § 8A. Intent N.D.Ga.Bkrtcy.Ct.2017. Cit. in case quot. in sup. Trustee for Chapter 11 debtor that was discovered to have been operated as a Ponzi scheme brought an adversary proceeding against brokerage firm, seeking to avoid as fraudulent certain transfers that debtor made to an account it maintained at firm. This court entered summary judgment for firm, holding that trustee failed to establish that debtor made the transfers to firm with the actual intent to hinder, delay, or defraud creditors. The court reasoned that the Ponzi scheme presumption did not apply, because the transfers at issue were not a direct and material inducement to future investors. The court noted that the presumption relied in part on the principle set forth in Restatement Second of Torts § 8A that knowledge to a substantial certainty constituted intent in 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