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

Case Citations [1] (Fall 2023)

handle is hein.ali/restate0339 and id is 1 raw text is: THE AMERICAN LAW INSTITUTE Fall 2023 Citations TORTS 2D DIVISION ONE. INTENTIONAL HARMS TO PERSONS, LAND, AND CHATTELS CHAPTER 1. MEANING OF TERMS USED THROUGHOUT THE RESTATEMENT OF TORTS § 8A. Intent C.D.Cal.Bkrtcy.Ct.2022. Cit. in sup.; com. (a) quot. in sup. and quot. in case quot. in sup.; com. (b) quot. in sup. Creditor filed an adversary proceeding against Chapter 7 debtor, seeking a determination that his prepetition state-court default judgment against debtor for slander per se was nondischargeable on the ground that the judgment was the result of debtor's willful and malicious conduct in making false statements about creditor to creditor's prospective employer during a background check. This court granted summary judgment for creditor on the issue of maliciousness, and, after a bench trial, held that creditor met his burden to show that debtor's conduct was also willful, such that the debt was nondischargeable. The court cited Restatement Second of Torts § 8A in pointing out that debtor stipulated that he had personal knowledge of the statements he made about creditor, and reasoning that debtor failed to rebut the presumption that he knew of the falsity of those statements. In re Sangha, 644 B.R. 843, 864-866. N.D.I11.2022. Com. (a) quot. in case quot. in sup. Homeowners sued city police officers, city, and others for, among other things, intentional infliction of emotional distress, after officers executed a search warrant of their home under the mistaken belief that it was the home of a suspected drug dealer. This court denied defendants' motion to dismiss plaintiffs' claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress, holding that a question of fact remained as to whether defendants intended to inflict extreme emotional distress or whether they were merely negligent, given that defendants allegedly failed to verify the suspected drug dealer's address and had other information that called into question whether they had the correct residence. The court noted that, under Restatement Second of Torts § 8A, intentional torts generally required that the actor intend the consequences of an act, while negligent or reckless torts required simply the act itself. Prokop v. Hileman, 588 F.Supp.3d 825, 838. N.D.Ohio, 2022. Cit. in ftn. In multidistrict litigation, two counties in Ohio sued pharmacies for allegedly engaging in intentional or illegal conduct that was a substantial factor in causing a public nuisance in the counties, namely, oversupply of legal prescription opioids and diversion of those opioids into the illicit market outside appropriate medical channels. After a jury returned a verdict for counties, this court denied pharmacies' motion for a new trial, holding, among other things, that the court's jury instructions and verdict forms were not erroneous. The court cited Restatement Second of Torts § 8A, COPYRIGHT (2023 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