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

Case Citations [i] (Fall 2023)

handle is hein.ali/rethrida0140 and id is 1 raw text is: THE AMERICAN LAW INSTITUTE Fall 2023 Citations AGENCY 3D CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTORY MATTERS TOPIC 1. DEFINITIONS AND TERMINOLOGY § 1.01 Agency Defined C.A.2, 2022. Quot. in diss. op. Author brought an action in state court against former President of the United States, alleging that defendant, while in office, made defamatory statements through public statements denying plaintiff's accusations of sexual assault and questioning plaintiff's credibility. After removal, the district court denied defendant's motion to substitute the United States as the defendant under the Federal Employees Liability Reform and Tort Compensation Act. This court reversed, vacated, and certified a question to the state court, holding, inter alia, that defendant was an agent of the federal government for the purposes of the Act. Citing Restatement Second of Agency § 220 and Restatement Third of Agency § 1.01, the dissent argued that defendant was not an agent under the Act, because, as the chief officer of the federal executive branch, no employer or federal body had the right to control the method and means of defendant's work. Carroll v. Trump, 49 F.4th 759, 783, 787. C.A.4, 2022. Com. (c) quot. in case quot. in diss. op. Assignee of a bankrupt law firm sued successor of a failed bank that had loaned money to firm, alleging that the loan agreement, which firm's managing partner had entered on firm's behalf while misrepresenting his authority to do so, was void and thus not transferrable from bank to successor. The district court denied successor's motion for summary judgment. On interlocutory appeal, this court reversed and remanded, holding that, under the D'Oench doctrine, assignee was barred from relying on evidence outside bank's records to prove that the agreement was void; the agreement was at most voidable and thus transferable. The dissent cited Restatement Third of Agency § 1.01 in arguing that an agent who lacked authority could not form a contract that was enforceable against a principal, and that records of such void transactions were not protected by D'Oench. Landcastle Acquisition Corp. v. Renasant Bank, 57 F.4th 1203, 1254, 1255. C.A.9, 2022. Quot. in case quot. in sup. The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission sued, among others, investors, alleging that defendants violated the Securities Exchange Act by trading municipal bonds as unregistered brokers. The district court granted plaintiff's motion for summary judgment. This court affirmed, holding that defendants were brokers for the purposes of the Act, because they traded bonds for the account of an investment company. The court explained that defendants acted as the investment company's agents as defined by Restatement Third of Agency § 1.01 because they traded bonds at the direction of the investment company's principal using the principal's capital; furthermore, 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