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

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

handle is hein.ali/restate0333 and id is 1 raw text is: 

                                       TORTS 2D


C.A.1, 2020. Cit. generally in sup. Homeowners filed an adversary proceeding against Chapter 7 debtor
who  contracted to renovate their home but abandoned the project before completing it, seeking a
determination that their unsecured claim against debtor for the cost to finish the renovations was
nondischargeable because debtor fraudulently induced them to hire him and misused their advance
payments  for his own personal enrichment. After a bench trial, the bankruptcy court ruled that the debt
was dischargeable. The court of appeals reversed in part. This court vacated and remanded with
instructions, holding that the bankruptcy court erred by, among other things, failing to consider whether
debtor had committed false pretenses through implied misrepresentations. In making its decision, the
court noted that actual fraud, understood in light of the common-law definition found in the Restatement
Second  of Torts, was broader than misrepresentation. In re Stewart, 948 F.3d 509, 521.

D.Ariz.2019. Cit. generally in case quot. in sup. After charges against gun owner, who was indicted by a
grand jury in connection with four random freeway shootings, were dismissed without prejudice for lack
of evidence, this court granted summary judgment for county on owner's claim for malicious
prosecution, holding that owner failed to present evidence sufficient to rebut the presumption of
probable cause created by the indictment. The court found that the Arizona Supreme Court would likely
conclude, consistent with Restatement Second of Torts § 664, that an indictment created a presumption
of probable cause for purposes of a malicious-prosecution claim, noting that, in the absence of legal
authority to the contrary, Arizona courts followed the Restatement Second of Torts. Merritt v. Arizona,
425 F.Supp.3d  1201, 1217.

D.D.C.2019.  Cit. generally in sup. and in case cit. in sup. Former captive and his sister brought an action
under the terrorism exception of the Foreign Sovereign Immunity Act against the Islamic Republic of
Iran, alleging that defendant detained former captive, tortured him for more than three years, and caused
plaintiffs severe emotional distress. This court entered a default judgment against defendant, holding
that plaintiffs alleged sufficient facts to support their claims. The court noted that the District of
Columbia  looked to the Restatement Second of Torts in establishing common-law principles for
determining tort liability under the Act. Abedini v. Government of Islamic Republic of Iran, 422
F.Supp.3d  118, 132.

D.D.C.2019.  Cit. generally in cases quot. in sup. United States servicemembers and others filed a private
cause of action against the North Korean government in connection with allegations that defendant was
liable as a state sponsor of terrorism for the actions of its agents, who kidnapped, imprisoned, and
tortured servicemembers for almost a year. After defendant failed to respond or appear, this court
granted plaintiffs' motion for a partial default judgment, holding that defendant was liable to plaintiffs
under the terrorism exception to the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act. The court reasoned, in part, that
plaintiffs showed that defendant was liable for its acts of torture, hostage-taking, and extrajudicial killing
under well-established theories of liability found in the Restatement Second of Torts, including assault,
battery, false imprisonment, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. Doe v. Democratic People's
Republic of Korea Ministry of Foreign Affairs Jungsong-Dong, 414 F.Supp.3d 109, 122, 127.
                             COPYRIGHT ©2020 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