Percy King and George Russell v. Crossland Savings Bank and American Express Company

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that defendant must have “intended or instigated the confinement of the plaintiff’
• affirming district court decision that “[c]onced[ed] that banks do, in fact, owe a duty of care to their customers ... ”
• upholding summary judgment for defendant bank on false imprisonment claim where bank erroneously reported checks deposited by plaintiffs as being lost or stolen to police and police arrested plaintiffs
• citing, inter alia, Solomon v. City of New York, 66 N.Y.2d 1026, 1027 (1985)
• \[T]he assessment of reasonableness generally is a factual question to be addressed by the jury.\
• “[S]ummary judgment is highly unusual in a negligence action where the assessment of reasonableness generally is a factual question to be addressed by the jury.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).