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

Case Citations July 2015 through February 2016 [1] (2015-2016)

handle is hein.ali/resttlph5304 and id is 1 raw text is: 





      TORTS 3D: LIABILITY FOR PHYSICAL AND

                             EMOTIONAL HARM





  Generally

  D.N.M.2014. Cit. generally in ftn., cit. generally in case cit. in ftn. In a case in which cancer-treatment
  facility filed, inter alia, claims for tortious interference with existing and prospective economic
  advantage against owner of hospitals and insurance companies, this court denied in part defendant's
  motion for summary judgment, holding that plaintiff alleged sufficient facts to support a tortious-
  interference claim. In making its decision, the court relied on Restatement Second of Torts, but
  acknowledged that the New Mexico Supreme Court had previously looked to the Restatement Third of
  Torts: Liability for Physical and Emotional Harm for guidance with other matters. New Mexico
  Oncology and Hematology Consultants, Ltd. v. Presbyterian Healthcare Services, 54 F.Supp.3d 1189,
  1227.



         CHAPTER 1. INTENT, RECKLESSNESS, AND NEGLIGENCE: DEFINITIONS

  § 1. Intent

  C.A.9 Bkrtcy.App.2015. Cit. in ftn. Creditor brought an adversary proceeding against Chapter 7
  debtors, seeking a determination of nondischargeability with regard to a judgment it obtained against
  debtors in California state court for breach of fiduciary duty and fraud. The bankruptcy court granted in
  part creditor's motion for summary judgment, relying on the preclusive effect of the judgment's award
  of punitive damages to find that the judgment debt was nondischargeable on grounds of willful and
  malicious injury. Vacating and remanding, this court held that the judgment did not satisfy the element
  of willful injury. The court reasoned that a punitive-damages award under California law could be based
  on acts done in conscious disregard of another's rights or safety, which was the equivalent of reckless
  conduct under the Restatement Third of Torts: Liability for Physical and Emotional Harm and was
  therefore insufficient to satisfy the willfulness requirement. In re Plyam, 530 B.R. 456, 464, 466.

  § 2. Recklessness

  C.A.9 Bkrtcy.App.2015. Cit. in ftn. Creditor brought an adversary proceeding against Chapter 7
  debtors, seeking a determination of nondischargeability with regard to a judgment it obtained against
  debtors in California state court for breach of fiduciary duty and fraud. The bankruptcy court granted in
  part creditor's motion for summary judgment, relying on the preclusive effect of the judgment's award
  of punitive damages to find that the judgment debt was nondischargeable on grounds of willful and
  malicious injury. Vacating and remanding, this court held that the judgment did not satisfy the element
  of willful injury. The court reasoned that a punitive-damages award under California law could be based
  on acts done in conscious disregard of another's rights or safety, which was the equivalent of reckless



_eALmlim    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