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

Case Citations [1] (April 2022 - August 2022)

handle is hein.ali/seccontract0193 and id is 1 raw text is: THE AMERICAN LAW INSTITUTE CONTRACTS 2D Generally C.A.4, 2022. Cit. generally in diss. op. A group of labor unions and an employee health-and-welfare fund sued employer, seeking liquidated damages after it made a series of tardy payments to the fund. The district court granted summary judgment for employer, finding that the liquidated damages constituted penalties and were therefore unrecoverable. Affirming, this court held that the district court did not err in finding that the liquidated damages were punitive and declining to enforce them. The dissent noted that, although the majority acknowledged the importance of federal labor policy, it began its analysis of the collective-bargaining agreement using general contract-law principles as explicated by the Restatement Second of Contracts, when its terms should have been analyzed under federal labor policy, which sanctioned the use of liquidated damages. Plumbers & Pipefitters Local 625 v. Nitro Construction Services, Inc., 27 F.4th 197, 204. Ct.Fed.Cl.2021. Cit. generally in cases cit. in ftn. Oil company, among others, sued the United States, alleging that defendant breached an oil-production agreement it had entered into with plaintiff's predecessor-in-interest by refusing to pay for plaintiff's environmental-remediation costs under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act. This court granted plaintiff's partial motion for summary judgment, holding that a general liability release of predecessor's claims against defendant did not bar plaintiff's present claims. The court noted that federal courts could use the Restatement Second of Contracts as an authoritative source in analyzing issues related to general liability releases. Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. United States, 155 Fed.Cl. 344, 352. Alaska, 2022. Cit. generally in disc. Patient filed a claim for breach of contract against hospital, after hospital's employee intentionally disclosed patient's health information to a third party in violation of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act. The trial court entered judgment in favor of hospital after the jury found that hospital's employee was not acting within the course and scope of her employment. This court vacated, holding that the jury instruction erroneously applied the rule of vicarious liability to excuse liability for breach of contract, and remanded for further proceedings. The court pointed to patient's argument that there was no reference in the Restatement Second of Contracts regarding various liability, which rested in tort. Guy v. Providence Health & Services Washington, 502 P.3d 13, 16. COPYRIGHT C2022 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