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

Case Citations [1] (Spring 2024)

handle is hein.ali/alitorts9925 and id is 1 raw text is: * sTHE AMERICAN LAW INSTITUTE Spring 2024 Citations TORTS 3D: LIABILITY FOR ECONOMIC HARM CHAPTER 1. UNINTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF ECONOMIC LOSS Generally Iowa 2023. Cit. generally in sup. After garbage-truck driver was arrested and acquitted on charges of interference with official acts, driver sued arresting police officer and state, alleging, inter alia, that plaintiff was entitled to damages for defendants' violation of state constitutional provisions against unreasonable searches and seizures. The trial court granted defendants' motion for summary judgment. This court affirmed, holding that it no longer recognized standalone causes of action for money damages under the state constitution, because overruled caselaw permitting civil remedies for constitutional violations disrupted the role of the judiciary by attempting to use quasi-legislative processes to grant plaintiff relief. The court pointed out that the Restatement Third of Torts: Liability for Physical and Emotional Harm did not reference the view that courts could craft remedies for violations of rights where legislature did not expressly provide relief. Burnett v. Smith, 990 N.W.2d 289, 306. § 1. Liability for the Unintentional Infliction of Economic Loss: General Principles D.Utah, 2022. Quot. in sup., com. (b) cit. in sup. Investor in transaction involving the purchase and sale of nitrile gloves sued law firm that represented purchaser of gloves, alleging that firm acted negligently by failing to verify wire-transfer authorizations made by principal of third-party entity who participated in the transaction, causing funds conveyed by investor to law firm to be conveyed to glove purchaser and be used for improper purposes. This court granted law firm's motion to dismiss, holding that, under state law, law firm did not owe investor a duty to verify wire-transfer authorization when it passively received investor's funds as part of its client's transaction. Citing Restatement Third of Torts: Liability for Economic Harm § 1, the court observed that the economic loss rule did not bar investor's claim, because investor's tort claim was expressly designed to remedy pure economic loss, and law firm was not party to the contract binding those involved in the glove transaction. BMF Advance, LLC v. Litiscape, LLC, 637 F.Supp.3d 1272, 1286. § 3. Preclusion of Tort Liability Arising from Contract (Economic-Loss Rule) COPYRIGHT (2024 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