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

LOG IN
LOG IN


Case Citations [i] (Fall 2025)

handle is hein.ali/relwtrts0344 and id is 1 raw text is: THE AMERICAN LAW INSTITUTE Fall 2025 Citations TORTS Generally M.D.Tenn.2024. Cit. generally in case quot. in sup. Buyers of a new home filed a claim for negligence against, among others, real estate agency that represented them in connection with the transaction, after an unidentified fraudster obtained buyer's personal information from agency and used it to persuade bank's employee to transfer funds for the house from buyers' account with bank without authorization. This court denied agency's motion to dismiss, holding that buyers adequately stated a claim against agency for negligence. The court rejected agency's argument that the negligence of bank's employee in sending an unauthorized wire transfer was an intervening and superseding cause that interrupted the causal chain and relieved agency of any possible liability, reasoning that, while agency had a solid basis for arguing that the employee's acts constituted an intervening cause, there were questions of fact as to whether the employee's acts constituted a superseding cause under the Restatement First of Torts and the Restatement Second of Torts. Lanahan v. Regions Bank, 732 F.Supp.3d 816, 827. DIVISION ONE. INTENTIONAL HARMS TO PERSONS, LAND AND CHATTELS CHAPTER 2. INTENTIONAL INVASIONS OF INTERESTS IN PERSONALITY TOPIC 4. THE INTEREST IN FREEDOM FROM CONFINEMENT § 35. False Imprisonment C.A.9, 2024. Quot. in case quot. in sup. Protestors filed a § 1983 class action against city and police department, alleging, inter alia, that police offers' use of chemical irritants in dispersing protestors during a political protest violated plaintiffs' Fourth Amendment rights against unreasonable searches and seizures. The district court granted in part defendants' motion for summary judgment, declining to determine the issue of whether the use of force in connection with the deployment of chemical agents involved a seizure within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment. This court affirmed in part and remanded, holding that an objective intent to restrain for Fourth Amendment purposes referred to measures that objectively aimed to detain a person. In deriving the contours of a seizure, 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.