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

Case Citations [1] (Spring 2024)

handle is hein.ali/resndacy0141 and id is 1 raw text is: THE AMERICAN LAW INSTITUTE Spring 2024 Citations AGENCY 2D Generally C.A.4, 2023. Cit. generally in ftn. Former employer sued former employees, alleging, inter alia, that defendants breached their duty of loyalty by submitting a bid through their own company to win a government subcontract that employer was also trying to obtain. The district court granted defendants' motion for summary judgment. This court reversed in part and remanded, holding that plaintiff presented sufficient evidence that defendants breached their duty of loyalty. Citing Restatement Second of Agency § 393, the court explained that a reasonable jury could find that defendants learned of the potential business opportunity through their employment with plaintiff and then made unsolicited offers to the contractor to compete directly with plaintiff. The court noted that the Virginia Supreme Court consistently relied on the Restatement Second of Agency when analyzing agency issues. Adnet, Inc. v. Soni, 66 F.4th 510, 517. D.Alaska, 2022. Cit. generally in disc. Passenger who was injured while riding in a skiff that was used to guide a tugboat sued owner of the tugboat and skiff, alleging that she was injured when the tugboat captain, who was purportedly under the influence of alcohol, struck a sandbar and grounded the skiff. This court granted in part owner's motion for summary judgment on passenger's claims that owner was vicariously liable for the captain's negligence. The court noted that, although both owner and passenger cited the Restatement Second of Agency when discussing passenger's vicarious-liability claim, the court would apply agency law as articulated in the Restatement Third of Agency, which superseded the Restatement Second of Agency in 2006. Garcia v. Vitus Energy, LLC, 605 F.Supp.3d 1188, 1211. D.Del.2022. Cit. in case cit. generally in disc. Manufacturer of electric clothes dryers sued corporate parent of entities that manufactured certain flame-retardant components of capacitors in the dryers, alleging, inter alia, that defendant was vicariously liable for the negligence of its subsidiaries in manufacturing defective components that caused some of plaintiff's dryers to catch fire. This court granted defendant's motion for summary judgment, holding that plaintiff failed to demonstrate that a principal-agent relationship existed between defendant and its subsidiaries under agency principles described in the Restatement Second of Agency. The court noted that Delaware agency law was consistent with the general common law and cited a Delaware court that had previously applied the 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