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

Case Citations [1] (July 2019 - April 2020)

handle is hein.ali/relwtrts0333 and id is 1 raw text is: 





                                         TORTS



Generally

C.A.11, 2019. Cit. generally in disc. City brought a lawsuit against banks, alleging that defendants
violated the Fair Housing Act by engaging in racially discriminatory lending practices in residential
housing markets that, among other things, diminished plaintiff s tax base. The district court granted
defendants' motion to dismiss. On remand from the U.S. Supreme Court, this court reversed and
remanded, holding, inter alia, that plaintiff sufficiently alleged that defendants' conduct was the
proximate cause of its injuries. The court noted that the common law did not fully explain what
constituted a direct relation between defendants' conduct and plaintiff s injury for the purposes of
establishing proximate cause, pointing out that caselaw and the Restatement of Torts had different
standards for proximate cause. City of Miami v. Wells Fargo & Co., 923 F.3d 1260, 1293.

Utah, 2019. Cit. generally in disc. After trucking company brought a lawsuit against competitor,
alleging intentional interference with a contract, this court answered a certified question from a district
court and defined what constituted improper means. The court cited a Utah Supreme Court case that
relied on Restatement of Torts § 766 and Restatement Second of Torts § 766 in defining improper
means, noting that a majority of other jurisdictions at the time recognized the Restatements as being
representative of tort law. C.R. England v. Swift Transportation Company, 437 P.3d 343, 348.



      DIVISION ONE. INTENTIONAL HARMS TO PERSONS, LAND AND CHATTELS

                    CHAPTER 5. ARREST AND PREVENTION OF CRIME

                         TITLE  B. CONDITIONS OF THE PRIVILEGE

                                  SUBTITLE I.   IN GENERAL

§ 118. General Principle

U.S.2019. Cit. in disc. After he was arrested for disorderly conduct and released, event attendee brought
a lawsuit against arresting officers, alleging that defendants violated his First Amendment rights when
they arrested him in retaliation for his refusal to speak with them. The district court granted defendants'
motion for summary judgment. The court of appeals reversed and remanded. This court reversed and
remanded, holding that the fact that defendants had probable cause to arrest plaintiff precluded
plaintiff's retaliatory-arrest claim. The court explained that claims for constitutional violations by state
entities followed common-law principles, and cited Restatement of Torts §§ 118, 119, and 121 in noting
that police officers generally had a privilege to make warrantless arrests for certain crimes if there was
probable cause to do so. Nieves v. Bartlett, 139 S.Ct. 1715, 1726.

§ 119. Arrest without Warrant  by Private Person for Criminal Offense


                             COPYRIGHT 02020 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 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