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



Case Citations [1] (Spring 2025)

handle is hein.ali/relwtrts0343 and id is 1 raw text is: 





                             THE AMERICAN


                               LAW INSTITUTE



                                      Spring 2025 Citations



                                         TORTS



Generally

C.A.1, Bkrtcy.App.2024. Cit. generally in sup. After a state court found that construction company and
its owner misclassified workers as independent contractors and were strictly liable to workers for unpaid
overtime under a Massachusetts statute, owner filed for bankruptcy, and workers brought an adversary
proceeding against owner, seeking a determination that the debt was excepted from discharge because
owner had willfully and maliciously injured them. The bankruptcy court entered judgment for owner.
This court affirmed, holding that, while owner caused workers to suffer an injury, the record failed to
rule out that he acted merely negligently or recklessly. The court observed that willful and malicious
was not defined in the Bankruptcy Code, but that its meaning could be derived from other sources
discussing similar concepts, including the Restatement of Torts and Restatement Second of Torts. In re
Sivieri, 657 B.R. 303, 308.

D.N.J.2023. Cit. generally in cases cit. in sup. Debtors filed a putative class action against debt
collector, alleging that it violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act by sending them each one debt-
collection letter. This court granted debtor collector's motion to dismiss, holding that the tort of
unreasonable debt collection was not traditional for purposes of satisfying the injury-in-fact
requirement for standing, because that tort had only been established in a single jurisdiction, Texas, for
approximately 70 years. The court noted that it looked to sources like the Restatement First of Torts,
which aimed to articulate the reasoned, mainstream, modern consensus of the law, in assessing
whether a tort was traditional for standing purposes. Church v. Collection Bureau of Hudson Valley,
Inc., 704 F.Supp.3d 521, 537.










                            COPYRIGHT 02025 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.