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

LOG IN
LOG IN


Case Citations [i] (Fall 2025)

handle is hein.ali/restate0344 and id is 1 raw text is: THE AMERICAN LAW INSTITUTE Fall 2025 Citations TORTS 2D Generally D.D.C.2024. Cit. generally in case cit. in disc. Estates and family members of deceased U.S. military servicemen filed claims for battery, wrongful death, and intentional infliction of emotional distress against Syria and Syrian military intelligence agency pursuant to the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, seeking damages resulting from the alleged kidnapping, torture, and extrajudicial killing of the servicemen by a foreign terrorist organization that had material support from defendants. This court entered default judgment against defendants, holding that plaintiffs established their claims by evidence satisfactory to the court on their claims. The court noted that it relied on the principles of law found in the Restatement Second of Torts to define the elements and scope of theories of recovery brought under the Act. Estate of Fouty v. Syrian Arab Republic, 743 F.Supp.3d 118, 156. N.D.Iowa, 2024. Cit. generally in sup. Professional models sued operator of a strip club, alleging that it used their images without their consent to commercially promote and increase attendance at its club. This court denied models' motion for partial summary judgment on their claims for violation of their right to privacy by appropriation and violation of their right to publicity, holding that there were genuine issues of material fact as to whether models were reasonably identifiable from the images depicted in operator's social media posts and flyers. The court predicted that the Iowa Supreme Court would allow models' claims to proceed, noting that, while the Iowa Supreme Court had not yet decided cases involving appropriation and the right of publicity, it had long recognized the right of privacy as characterized in the Restatement Second of Torts. Souza v. Charmed LLC, 715 F.Supp.3d 1118, 1124. 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 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.