About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline

Case Citations [1] (July 2017 through April 2018)

handle is hein.ali/relwtrts0329 and id is 1 raw text is: 





                                         TORTS





Generally

E.D.Cal.2017. Cit. generally in sup. In a dispute between Chapter 13 debtors and secured creditor that
held a note and deed of trust on debtors' home, this court held that creditor willfully violated debtors'
automatic stay on multiple occasions, such that debtors were entitled to punitive damages, as well as
actual damages for both economic and emotional harm, under the Restatement of Torts. The court noted
that federal courts, including the Supreme Court, commonly found influential the tort-damages
principles articulated in the Restatements when, as here, damages were a question of federal law and
there was no controlling formal precedent. Sundquist v. Bank of America, N.A., 566 B.R. 563, 588.

E.D.N.Y.2016. Cit. generally in case quot. in disc. In an action brought under the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act, a consumer with credit-card debt alleged that debt collector's notice of debt, including a
statement that any forgiveness of debt would be reported as required by the Internal Revenue Service,
was a false, deceptive, or misleading representation. This court denied defendant's motion to dismiss,
holding that plaintiff had standing because the alleged conduct constituted a material violation of
plaintiff's substantive statutory right to be free of abusive debt practices. In discussing that a statutory
infraction could result in an injury-in-fact where common law supported a finding of a substantive right,
the court noted that the Restatement of Torts had recognized fraudulent and negligent misrepresentation
as legally cognizable harms. Bautz v. ARS National Services, Inc., 226 F.Supp.3d 131, 144.



      DIVISION   ONE.  INTENTIONAL HARMS TO PERSONS, LAND AND CHATTELS

      CHAPTER 4. DEFENSES OF PERSON, LAND AND CHATTELS-RECAPTION

               TOPIC  1. SELF-DEFENSE AND DEFENSE OF THIRD PERSONS

§ 70. Character and Extent of Force Permissible

N.H.2017. Cit. in Model Penal Code quot. in ftn. (general cite). Criminal defendant was charged with
attempted murder and first-degree assault in connection with an incident in which he pulled out a gun,
fired a warning shot, and then shot and injured an individual who was repeatedly punching his brother.
After a jury found defendant guilty on all charges, the trial court sentenced defendant on the attempted
murder conviction only. Reversing and remanding, this court held that the court erred in failing to
instruct the jury that the act of producing or displaying a weapon constituted non-deadly force under the
state criminal code. The court noted that, under Restatement of Torts § 70, brandishing or pointing a gun
in self-defense or defense of a third person did not constitute deadly force if the purpose was merely to
threaten that the actor would use deadly force if necessary, rather than to cause death or great bodily
injury. State v. Rice, 159 A.3d 1250, 1259.





           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 nearly 3,000 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:

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?

profiles profiles most