About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline

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

handle is hein.ali/restate0336 and id is 1 raw text is: 





                                        TORTS 2D



  Generally

  D.Or.2020. Cit. generally in disc. Vessel-repair company sued owners who hired it to perform work on
  their vessel but later disputed the cost of the repairs, alleging, among other things, that owners
  intentionally converted its tools left onboard the vessel when they sailed away from the marina without
  notifying company or paying its invoice. This court granted in part owners' motion for summary
  judgment, holding that company failed to present sufficient evidence to support a reasonable jury's
  verdict on company's conversion claim under Restatement Second of Torts § 222A, because company
  conceded that owners eventually returned the tools. In making its decision, the court noted that general
  principles of tort law guided courts in maritime tort cases, and that Oregon had adopted the definition of
  conversion set forth in the Restatement Second of Torts. NextWave Marine Systems, Inc. v. M/V
  Nelida, 488 F.Supp.3d 1004, 1015.

  C.A.8, 2021. Cit. generally in disc. Long-haul trucking company brought, among other things, a claim
  for tortious interference with a contract against competitor, alleging that defendant acted intentionally
  and improperly when it induced plaintiff's truck drivers into leaving its employ and working for
  defendant, despite the existence of non-compete covenants in their employment agreements. The district
  court entered judgment on a jury verdict for plaintiff. This court reversed in part and remanded, holding
  that defendant's conduct did not constitute tortious interference with plaintiff's employment agreements
  with its drivers. The court noted that Iowa consistently applied pertinent sections of the Restatement
  Second of Torts when analyzing intentional-interference claims. CRST Expedited, Inc. v. Swift
  Transportation Company  of Arizona, LLC, 8 F.4th 690, 696.

  D.Nev.2021. Cit. generally in cases cit. in disc. Dog owner brought, among other things, a conversion
  claim against police officers and county, alleging that defendants unlawfully seized her dogs and refused
  to return them to her following reports that she kept emaciated dogs on her property. This court granted
  defendants' motion for summary judgment, holding that defendants were privileged to seize plaintiff's
  dogs, because they acted with authority granted by local ordinances and valid state-court orders. The
  court observed that looking to the Restatement Second of Torts for the source of defendants' privilege
  was appropriate because Nevada looked to the Restatement for guidance in tort actions. Askew v. Clark
  County, Nevada, 519 F.Supp.3d  817, 830.

  D.Vt.2021. Cit. generally in disc. Surgical patient, who suffered complications from a vaginal tape
  implanted in her body to treat urinary incontinence, brought an action against manufacturers of vaginal
  tape, alleging that defendants failed to provide adequate warnings about complications from using its
  product. This court granted in part and denied in part defendants' motion for partial summary judgment,
  holding that plaintiff's claims failed as a matter of law to the extent they arose from defendants'
  purported failure to warn plaintiff, because, under the learned-intermediary doctrine set forth in
  Restatement Third of Torts: Products Liability § 6, defendants fulfilled their duty so long as they
  provided adequate warnings to plaintiff's treating physician. The court explained that it looked to the
  Restatement to define the doctrine, because Vermont had previously relied on sources such as the


                               COPYRIGHT ©2022 By THE AMERICAN LAW INSTITUTE
                                             All rights reserved

A  -I-I                                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:

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?

profiles profiles most