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

Case Citations [1] (April 2023 - August 2023)

handle is hein.ali/rethrida0139 and id is 1 raw text is: THE AMERICAN LAW INSTITUTE Spring 2023 Citations AGENCY 3D Generally Cal.App.2022. Cit. generally in sup. Consumers who purchased a truck that turned out to be a lemon filed claims against manufacturer under the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act and for fraud. After manufacturer conceded liability under the Act and a jury found for consumers on all claims, the trial court awarded consumers damages. Affirming, this court held, among other things, that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by admitting as evidence certain documents exchanged between manufacturer's corporate agents under the authorized-admissions exception to hearsay. The court rejected manufacturer's argument that the exception did not apply under Restatement Second of Agency § 287, noting that California had not adopted § 287, which had been omitted from the Restatement Third of Agency. Bowser v. Ford Motor Company, 293 Cal.Rptr.3d 772, 789. CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTORY MATTERS TOPIC 1. DEFINITIONS AND TERMINOLOGY § 1.01 Agency Defined C.A.2, 2022. Com. (c) cit. and quot. in sup., quot. in diss. op.; com. (f) quot. in case quot. in diss. op. Nonresident foreign national, who was employed by foreign subsidiary of parent company, appealed, among other things, a conviction for violation of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, alleging that he could not be held criminally liable for corruptly using interstate commerce, pursuant to an alleged scheme by parent company's domestic subsidiary to bribe foreign officials. This court affirmed on other grounds, holding that defendant was not the agent of domestic subsidiary such that he could be held liable for violation of the Act. Citing Restatement Third of Agency § 1.01, the court explained that domestic subsidiary did not have the power to control defendant's work, because defendant, by being a parallel subsidiary of parent company, could not be terminated by domestic subsidiary. The dissent argued that the majority overly focused on domestic subsidiary's ability to terminate defendant's employment, because, under § 1.01, the question of whether defendant was domestic subsidiary's agent turned on whether domestic subsidiary had the power to control defendant's work. United States v. Hoskins, 44 F.4th 140, 150, 151, 159-161. C.A.7, 2022. Cit. in sup. After being indicted for distributing controlled substances, criminal defendant filed a motion to dismiss, alleging that he received federal immunity through a cooperation agreement he COPYRIGHT C2023 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