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

LOG IN
LOG IN


Case Citations [i] (Fall 2025)

handle is hein.ali/rethrida0144 and id is 1 raw text is: THE AMERICAN LAW INSTITUTE Fall 2025 Citations AGENCY 3D Generally D.Nev.2024. Cit. generally in cases cit. in ftn. Consumer filed a pro se action against bank, alleging that it violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act by reporting to credit bureaus that he was an authorized user on an account that belonged to his wife. This court granted bank's motion to compel arbitration, holding that agency principles bound consumer to the arbitration agreement signed by his wife regarding her account given that the at-issue contract stated that all authorized users were the account holder's agents, the account holder had to pay all charges made by an authorized user under the contract terms, and, knowing this information, consumer's wife requested the card and consumer used it. The court noted that Nevada courts often relied on Restatement Third of Agency for general agency principles. Ball v. Citibank, N.A., 733 F.Supp.3d 972, 977. CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTORY MATTERS TOPIC 1. DEFINITIONS AND TERMINOLOGY § 1.01 Agency Defined N.D.Ill.2024. Cit. in case quot. in sup. Consumer whose telephone number was on an insurer's internal do-not-call list sued insurer, alleging that it was vicariously liable for telephone calls that telemarketers made to consumers on behalf of two of its insurance agents in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. This court granted consumer's motion for summary judgment, holding that insurer could be vicariously liable for the calls, because the insurance agents had insurer's express authority to hire subcontractors and insurer had no policy that prohibited subcontractors from appointing the telemarketers as subagents who placed the unlawful calls. The court noted that an agency relationship could be created through apparent authority or express authority under Restatement Third of Agency § 1.01, and that insurer did not seriously dispute that its contractual relationships with the insurance agents created an agency relationship that permitted it to retain a vendor for solicitation purposes. Hossfeld v. Allstate Insurance Co., 726 F.Supp.3d 852, 876. 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.