Tobin Ex Rel. L. v. Federal Express Corp.

How courts have described this case

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

• stating that “[d]isclosure (that is, proof that [a defendant] disclosed [private information] to a third party) is an essential element of the plaintiff's privacy claim.”
• quoIting Wynne v. Tufts Univ. Sch. of Med., 976 F.2d 791, 794 (1st Cir. 1992)
• applying preemption clause of Airline Deregulation Act to avoid subjecting national carrier to patchwork of state regulations in contravention of clause’s purpose
• describing the ADA preemption “dividing line” as “between state laws that regulate ‘how [a] service is performed’ (preempted) and those that regulate how an airline behaves as an employer or proprietor (not preempted
• rejecting plaintiff’s argument that tort claims arising out of her receipt of a mislabeled and misdelivered package did not implicate “services” because she was not part of the delivery transaction and thus “did not [herself] bargain for the delivery of an unwanted package”
• adopting Hodges definition of service

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).