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



Case Citations [i] (Fall 2025)

handle is hein.ali/relagcy0143 and id is 1 raw text is: 





                            THE AMERICAN


                            LAW INSTITUTE



                                     Fall 2025 Citations



                                     AGENCY



Generally

D.S.C.2024. Cit. generally in case quot. in sup. Consumer filed a pro se action against manufacturer of
windows and doors, alleging that it violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) by calling
consumer's telephone number 20 times without his consent. This court granted manufacturer's motion
for summary judgment, holding that manufacturer was not vicariously liable for the calls, which were
made by a vendor retained by one of manufacturer's licensed retailers. Relying on common-law agency
principles set forth in the Restatement of Agency, the court reasoned that there was no evidence that
supported a finding that an agency relationship existed between manufacturer and the retailer or
manufacturer and the vendor, because manufacturer exercised no control over their day-to-day
marketing or telephone-call practices and manufacturer had no knowledge of the calls prior to this
lawsuit. Gallipeau v. Renewal by Andersen LLC, 742 F.Supp.3d 508, 517.



          CHAPTER 7. LIABILITY OF PRINCIPAL TO THIRD PERSON; TORTS

    TOPIC   2. LIABILITY  FOR  AUTHORIZED CONDUCT OR CONDUCT INCIDENTAL
                                        THERETO

                             TITLE  B. TORTS  OF  SERVANTS

                                   WHO   IS A SERVANT

§ 220. Definition

E.D.Tex.2024. Subsec. (1) cit. in case quot. in sup. Advocacy group for business associations and others
filed an action against National Labor Relations Board, seeking relief from a final agency action that
rescinded and replaced the regulation governing status as a joint employer under the National Labor
Relations Act, arguing, among other things, that the new regulation was inconsistent with the common
law. This court granted in part plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment and issued a final judgment
vacating the new regulation, holding that the regulation defining joint employer was invalid. The court

                           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.