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

handle is hein.ali/rethrida0129 and id is 1 raw text is: 

                                      AGENCY 3D


  N.D.Cal.2016. Cit. generally in case quot. in sup. In an action brought by creator of an internet-based
  hot-water-management  system against its former vice-president, its former lead operations technician,
  and a competing business, this court denied former technician's motion to dismiss, holding that plaintiff
  had adequately pled a claim for breach of duty of loyalty, and rejecting technician's argument that only
  employees with managerial duties owed a duty of loyalty. The court looked to caselaw that relied on
  Restatement Second of Agency and Restatement Third of Agency in concluding that lower-level
  employees, such as a sales clerk or laborer, owed a duty of loyalty to their employers. E.D.C.
  Technologies, Inc. v. Seidel, 216 F.Supp.3d 1012, 1016.

  D.Kan.2017.  Cit. generally in sup. Cattle seller sued buyer, seeking payment for cattle that buyer's
  purported agent purchased on behalf of buyer at seller's livestock auction. This court denied buyer's
  motion to dismiss, holding that seller alleged sufficient facts that, if proven true, could support a
  plausible finding of a principal-agent relationship between agent and buyer, and that agent had authority
  to contract with seller on buyer's behalf. The court relied on a Kansas Supreme Court opinion that
  employed the Restatement's two-step process for determining whether an alleged agent could bind an
  alleged principal in a contract, which involved identifying whether there was an agency relationship
  between the alleged agent and the alleged principal, and, if so, whether the agent's acts were within the
  scope of the agent's authority or were otherwise binding on the principal. Rezac Livestock Commission
  Company,  Inc. v. Pinnacle Bank, 255 F.Supp.3d 1150, 1159, 1160, 1167, 1168.

  S.D.Ohio, 2016. Cit. generally in disc. and in cases cit. in disc. In a purported class action brought under
  the Telephone Consumer Privacy Act (TCPA)  by consumer against company that he alleged contracted
  with telemarketing company that placed calls to a number he had listed on the national Do Not Call
  Registry, this court granted defendant's motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, holding
  unrefuted evidence demonstrated that there was no principal-agent relationship between defendant and
  telemarketing company and defendant could not have ratified telemarketer's conduct. In making its
  decision, the court relied on the Restatement Third of Agency, noting that the Sixth Circuit had relied on
  the Restatement in the past, including in cases arising under the TCPA. Johansen v. Homeadvisor, Inc.,
  218 F.Supp.3d 577, 585.

                           CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTORY MATTERS

                         TOPIC   1. DEFINITIONS AND TERMINOLOGY

   1.01 Agency Defined

AwiL         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?