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

Case Citations [i] (2015)

handle is hein.ali/reconlw0149 and id is 1 raw text is: CONFLICT OF LAWS INTRODUCTION E.D.Pa.2015. Intro. quot. in case quot. in ftn. Employee filed a putative class action for, inter alia, restitution against employer whose laptops were stolen by another employee, alleging that defendant breached its implied contract with plaintiff and was unjustly enriched by the savings in costs that it should have reasonably expended to protect plaintiff's and other current and former employees' personal identification information contained on the laptops. This court denied in part defendant's motion to dismiss, holding that plaintiff stated a claim for restitution, even though it was a contractual setting, because plaintiff alleged that defendant engaged in an opportunistic breach of contract and plaintiff did not attempt to rewrite the terms of the agreement. The court cited precedent that, quoting the Introductory Note to the Restatement of Conflict of Laws, stated that the intent of the Restatements was to present an orderly statement of the general common law. Enslin v. The Coca-Cola Company, 136 F.Supp.3d 654, 678. CHAPTER 9. WRONGS TOPIC 1. TORTS § 377. The Place of Wrong D.Md.2015. Quot. in case quot. in sup. Family of U.S. citizen who was a victim of a terrorist attack at a hotel in Pakistan brought a wrongful-death claim in federal district court in Maryland against Maryland- based franchisor of the Pakistani hotel, alleging that defendant was negligent in the creation and coordination of a security plan for the hotel. This court granted summary judgment in favor of defendant, holding, among other things, that in a diversity case like this, it should apply the conflict-of- laws rule of Maryland, which provided that the principle of lex loci delecti applied for all tort claims. Citing Restatement of Conflict of Laws § 377, the court stated that, here, although the place where the victim was harmed was Pakistan, and the law of Pakistan would thus appear to apply, the question of what law to apply did not need to be decided here because, under the laws of both Maryland and Pakistan, defendant did not exert sufficient control over the operations of the Pakistani hotel. DiFederico v. Marriott Intern., Inc., 130 F.Supp.3d 986, 990. T A L Ime 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