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

LOG IN
LOG IN


Case Citations [1] (Spring 2025)

handle is hein.ali/rethrida0143 and id is 1 raw text is: THE AMERICAN LAW INSTITUTE Spring 2025 Citations AGENCY 3D Generally D.N.J.2023. Cit. generally in cases cit. in sup. Consumer filed a class action against provider of extended vehicle-warranty services, alleging that it violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act by permitting another entity to place a prerecorded call regarding its services to consumer's cellular telephone without his consent. This court denied provider's motion to dismiss, holding that, while consumer failed to state a claim that provider was vicariously liable for the other entity's actions, he sufficiently alleged facts from which it could be inferred that provider and the other entity were essentially functioning as one and the same entity, such that provider was directly liable for the other entity's actions. The court noted that most courts that permitted recovery under a vicarious-liability theory for similar violations of the Act relied on principles set forth in the Restatement Third of Agency. Doyle v. Matrix Warranty Solutions, Inc., 679 F.Supp.3d 42, 46. Cal.App.2024. Cit. generally in case cit. in ftn. Beneficiary ofdecedent's irrevocable trust filed a petition asserting claims for breach of fiduciary duty, financial elder abuse, and the return of trust property against former co-trustee. After a bench trial, the trial court rejected defendant's argument that plaintiff s claims were released in a settlement between defendant and successor co-trustees of the trust, finding that plaintiff was not bound by the settlement because it was executed without notice to him. Affirming, this court held that the right to release a claim belonging to the trust did not empower a trustee to release claims belonging to the beneficiaries, and there was evidence that defendant was not acting in good faith, because he retained trust assets under the settlement in exchange for dismissing his petitions against the trust when he knew he was not entitled to the assets. The court cited the Restatement Third of Agency in noting that an agent could be subject to post-termination duties applicable to the agent's use of property of the principal and confidential information provided by the principal or otherwise acquired in the course of the agency relationship. Asaro v. Maniscalco, 323 Cal.Rptr.3d 275, 290. Me.2024. Cit. generally in sup. and in ftn., cit. generally in cases cit. in sup. Restaurant patrons filed a claim for race discrimination in violation of the Maine Human Rights Act against restaurant owner and operator, alleging that defendant's employee used an offensive racial slur against them. After a bench trial, the trial court found that defendant was not vicariously liable for its employee's conduct. This court 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.