Case Citations July 2015 through February 2016 [1] (2015-2016)

handle is hein.ali/rethrida0125 and id is 1 raw text is: 





                                     AGENCY 3D





  Generally

  D.Ariz.2014. Cit. generally in sup. After insurance providers signed a settlement agreement with victim
  of a car accident involving a rental car, insurance providers brought an action against rental-car
  company, seeking, among other things, equitable indemnification for the money plaintiffs paid pursuant
  to the settlement agreement. Denying in part defendant's motion for summary judgment, this court held
  that there was a genuine issue of material fact regarding defendant's status as plaintiffs' agent.
  Acknowledging  that Arizona generally followed the Restatement of Agency, the court relied on
  Restatement Third of Agency  1.01 and concluded that plaintiffs presented sufficient evidence to
  support their argument that an agency relationship existed between plaintiffs and defendant, and
  therefore defendant was not entitled to summary judgment for that claim. KnightBrook Ins. Co. v.
  Payless Car Rental System, Inc., 43 F.Supp.3d 965, 978.

  D.V.I.2014. Cit. generally in ftn. In workers' defamation action against refinery, this court granted
  summary  judgment to refinery, holding that it was not vicariously liable for its employees' allegedly
  defamatory statements about workers. In making its decision, the court noted that Virgin Islands courts
  had continued to rely on the Restatement Second of Agency, even after the promulgation of the
  Restatement Third of Agency, that the Supreme Court of the Virgin Islands had held that Virgin Islands
  courts were not bound by changes to the Restatements; and, in any event, the court's conclusions
  reached in reliance on the Restatement Second did not differ from those it would have reached if it had
  relied on the Restatement Third. Illaraza v. HOVENSA LLC, 73 F.Supp.3d 588, 607.



  Introduction

  Mo.App.2014.  Intro. quot. in sup. Children of patient who died of colon cancer sued medical center,
  alleging that a radiologist at the medical center negligently interpreted the results of patient's CT scan,
  delaying the treatment of her cancer. The trial court granted summary judgment for medical center,
  finding that children were barred by a state statute from recovering against medical center for the
  radiologist's tortious actions, because the radiologist was not a physician employee of medical center
  within the meaning of the statute, but rather, an employee of medical center's contractor. This court
  reversed and remanded to the trial court with instructions to determine whether the radiologist was
  medical center's employee by reference to common-law principles of agency, as set forth in the
  Restatement Third of Agency and other authorities. Jefferson ex rel. Jefferson v. Missouri Baptist
  Medical Center, 447 S.W.3d 701, 709.



                           CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTORY MATTERS




   LL        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 2,700 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.



Access to this content requires a subscription. Please visit the following page to request a quote or trial:

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?