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

LOG IN
LOG IN


Case Citations [i] (Fall 2025)

handle is hein.ali/contract0200 and id is 1 raw text is: THE AMERICAN LAW INSTITUTE Fall 2025 Citations CONTRACTS Introduction N.D.Ill.2024. Intro. quot. in sup. After direct purchaser of turkeys filed for bankruptcy, investor purchased direct purchaser's claims as a member of an antitrust class action against turkey processors that allegedly conspired to artificially suppress turkey production and increase turkey prices, opted out of the class, and filed a separate antitrust action against processors. This court denied processors' motion to dismiss on grounds of champerty, holding that, under federal common law, the assignment between direct purchaser and investor, which were both sophisticated entities, was not void as champertous, because the assigned cause of action arose from federal antitrust statutes. The court reasoned, in part, that the Restatement First of Contracts did not prohibit the assignment, noting that the Restatement First of Contracts had been relied upon by courts as a persuasive source of law and guidance. In re Turkey Antitrust Litigation, 727 F.Supp.3d 756, 762. CHAPTER 9. THE SCOPE AND MEANING OF CONTRACTS TOPIC 1. INTERPRETATION § 235. Rules Aiding Application of Standards of Interpretation Idaho, 2024. Subsec. (c) quot. in sup., com. (d) cit. in sup. Developer of a planned-unit development sued county, alleging, among other things, that county breached a prior settlement agreement with developer and activist groups by creating an obstacle that prevented construction of developer's project. The trial court granted summary judgment for county on developer's breach-of-contract claim. This court reversed in part and remanded, holding that there was a genuine issue of material fact as to whether county breached the settlement agreement. The court explained that that the trial court erred in limiting its analysis of the agreement to whether the agreement's mutual-releases provision was ambiguous, pointing out that it was contrary to the court's jurisprudence and Restatement of Contracts § 235, which required that the court analyze every word within the four corners of a writing, and that the agreement when read in its entirety could be read to preclude county from doing anything within its COPYRIGHT C2025 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.