Case Studies LEB 320F Final Exam

*Winstead v. Jackson (50 Cent)*

- 50 Cent sued for his lyrics by author of a book that shared unreleased copies of his book - Said that the lyrics were too similar to what was shared in his book - Similar life/circumstances, similar stories/wording - Not impossible to have experienced similar things

*Brantley v. Kuntz* (pg. 139)

- African hair braider for 20 years had to meet requirements of "Barber school" in order to teach students, filed for summary judgment against Texas Department of Licensing and Regulation -> law didn't have rational basis

*POM Wonderful v. Coca-Cola*

- Coke product was labeled as "juice" despite containing less than 1% actual juice - Problem for POM Wonderful because they are a company that specializes in pomegranate juice - POM said Coca-Cola violated the Lanham Act - Coca-Cola said they were protected by the FDA - Which law rules? - 9th circuit court decision reversed by Supreme Court; Coca-Cola determined not to be immune from the Lanham Act

*Hartland Computer v. Insurance Man*

- Contract of adhesion o Hartland bought computers from a company called Multitask o leased/rented computers to Insurance Man for 36 month contract o Hartland made no promises regarding efficacy of computers o K states that Insurance Man would have to go directly to vendor for repairs o Lease payments sue, however, regardless of condition of computers o Computers broke, Insurance Man (and its owners refused to pay) o Tried to settle rationally by selling computers o Hartland still sued for unpaid lease of X months o History - trial court judge ruled that Adhesion K was somehow unenforceable and therefore Hartland's disclaimers of liability were null o HLDG & Rationale - adhesion K are ubiquitous, part of modern society and modern business o Any rule that automatically invalidates such K would be unworkable o Use RPS to determine what is acceptable o Insurance Man received computers and rec'd transfer of manufacturer warranty associated with those computers so that they could make repairs directly o Insurance Man should be used to K and what they mean by virtue of their own business o Even though the computers kept breaking, at the time of the dispute it was only twice o Even though the court feels for Insurance Man, "it was the equipment, not the terms of the K, which failed to live up to [Insurance Man's] expectations"

*Sorrell v. IMS Health Inc.* (pg. 131)

- Court held that a Vermont statute that restricted the sale, disclosure, and use of records that revealed the prescribing practices of individual doctors violated the First Amendment.

*Speakers of Sport Inc. v. Proserv Inc.* (pg. 225)

- Ivan Rodriguez was a successful baseball player who switched contracts to make more money, tortious interference with contract - Ivan Rodriguez used Speakers as his agent until ProServe lured him away with a promise to more endorsement deals -> the deals never came and then Ivan went to another agent that landed him a big 5 yr $42 million deal - Speakers sued ProServ for tortious interference with contract; district courts rules against Speakers and then appealed (appellate court affirmed) - Competition is normal, not illegal - Wrongful competition: violation of industry standards or violation of business ethics

*Jacobson v. United States* (pg. 176)

- Jacobson was trapped by the government into buying pornographic magazines *entrapment*

*Lough v. Brunswick Corp.* (pg. 249)

- Marine propulsion devices for boats case

*Marbury v. Madison*

- No constitutional law before this case - Checks and balances established as a result - John Adams nominated judges for district court, approved by senate o Lag time between approval and when the judges were actually notified of their appointments due to o John Adams administration ended before all confirmations were delivered - Thomas Jefferson directed his secretary of state NOT to finish delivering the appointments - Judiciary Act - courts determine if law is constitutional or not - Review: Judiciary Act is unconstitutional; therefore, commissions can't be delivered

*Horne v. Department of Agriculture* (pg. 146)

- Pair of Supreme Court Cases in which the Court established that the taking clause of the the fifth amendment applies to personal property. The case came from the National Raisin Reserve when a farmer challenged a rule that required farmers to keep a portion of their crops off the market.

*United States v. Nosal* (pg. 187)

- Stole information from a firm he used to work for o Used current employees as spies also o Was convicted under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act

*Cockrell v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.* (pg. 216)

- Unjust imprisonment of a youth who was accused of stealing • Karl Cockrell went to Walmart with family and was stopped by security o Stopped him because he was hanging out close to the women's clothing aisle and he had walked through the cigarette aisle without taking anything o Asked him to remove his clothing and a surgical bandage o Security did not find anything suspicious o Common sense - no probable cause to stop him • Shopkeeper's Privilege Defense - store owners should have some ability to detain and deter theft in their store

*Enron*

> "Black box" company, but people were happy not asking questions as long as Enron was making them money. > Everyone else thought they were unstoppable so they thought so too > Reported finances on basis of "mark-to-market" accounting (based securities on current market value rather than book value--essentially predictions) which drove stock prices up > Executives sold stock before people caught on

*J.M. Smucker Company*

> An activist started to test dog/cat food because they were getting complaints > Low doses of pentobarbital (sole use is to put animals to sleep) were found in the food > Smucker's is a food conglomerate that owns many food brands such as Jiff Peanut Butter, Dunkin Donuts, etc. > If they are this careless with dog/cat food, who knows what they'll do with human food

*Gilliam v Hi Temp* (pg. 654)

> Asbestos case where Hi Temp ceased operations but lawsuits kept coming in and can insurance policy pay out? Is it an asset that was distributed when the company wound up? Or is insurance something else? > Hi Temp ends up winning because law clearly says that claims are barred after 1 year, and since insurance isn't an asset that was distributed, there aren't any assets to keep attacking, which is kinda the point of this law that bars future claims

*Valeant Pharmaceuticals*

> Big pharmaceutical company would buy small pharmaceutical company and jack up the prices > People had no choice; either pay the price or die > Valeant gets a lot of $$ > But their stock plummeted > Business model is to take advantage of sick ppl > However this is not illegal

*Uber*

> CEO mocked MIT research on ride-sharing economics > Flaw in thought process on CEO's part > Demonstrates a lack of emotional intelligence

*Tarasoff v. Regents of University of California*

> Case 0: first time being a good samaritan was tried in court > Doctor patient confidentiality overruled due to the nature of knowledge he knew about his patients mental health and intentions > *Outcome*: professionals with information regarding patients have to release that info if it is potentially harmful to others

*Formula One*

> Change from using Grid Girls to Grid Kids > Socially motivated decision, no legal action > F1 wants to change its image (less on sexualizing women) > Not all Grid Girls liked the decision; some enjoyed the job > Is it ok for the company to make that assumption for them?

*Volkswagen*

> Cheated the system and made a bug that said their diesel cars are more fuel efficient and meet the emission standards when they actually do not. > Such a big deal that the German Government came out and gave a public apology. > Parent company of Mercedes Benz might be guilty in taking part in messing with their cars as Volkswagen did

*Oxford Health Care Plans LLC v. Sutter* (pg. 81)

> Class action lawsuit against Oxford; claim they did not make full/prompt payment to Sutter > Claims were referred to arbitration who authorized case > Oxford filed motion to vacate arbitrator's decision, saying he "exceeded his powers" > Issue: After referring case to arbitration, can Oxford legally vacate arbitrator's decision and bring case BACK to federal court? (no?) > Remanded > Decision: Arbitrator's ruling was final (affirmed) - arbitrator made "good faith attempt" to interpret contract > illustrates just how limited is a court review of an arbitration decision ---------------------------- Sutter, a doctor agreed to provide medical care to members of Oxford's network of patients. Sutter sued Oxford alleging that Oxford had failed to make full and prompt payment to the doctors in violation of their contracts and various state laws. Oxford moved to compel arbitration of Sutter's claims, due to the contract with Sutter stating: "No civil action concerning any dispute arising under this Agreement shall be instituted before any court, and all such disputes shall be submitted to final and binding arbitration in New Jersey, pursuant to the rules of the American Arbitration Association with one arbitrator." The state court dismissed the suit, referring it to arbitration. Oxford appealed the arbitration decision. The question for the judge was not whether the arbitrator construed the parties' contract correctly, but whether he construed it at all. Because he did, and therefore did not "exceed his powers," we cannot give Oxford the relief is wants. Decision was affirmed.

*Equifax*

> Data breach because they failed to protect the data and then prevented consumers from suing the company through a "accept terms agreement" in order to see if they were one of the individuals whose information was stolen. > Then said they had to pay $100 to fix the problem that Equifax caused through locking their credit report.

*Podias v. Mairs* (pg. 19)

> Drunk Driving Case, left the body in the road, body was killed by another vehicle → are the passengers responsible? Sufficient evidence for a jury to find defendants liable for negligence because they had aided and abetted Mairs' wrongful post-accident conduct by not acting reasonably under circumstances to assist Podias, such as calling 911. > Good Samaritan Laws: "notions of fairness and common decency and is in accord with public policy" ⇒ duty to make reasonable effort to give assistance/avoid further harm > Precedent = primary law = case code → judge created law > Precedents represent small movements in the direction society wants the law to go > Criminal case = drunk driving > *Civil case* = are the passengers, Swanson and Newell, responsible? > Innocent bystander BUT social policy justifies a duty to act when there is: foreseeability ⇒ decision "reversed and remanded" (aka affirmed) and sent back to trial

*Zidell v. Zidell* (pg. 637)

> Duty of GFFD > Brothers {Arnold=P & Emery=D} each own 37.5% of 4 closely related family corporations. 3rd party sells shares to Emery's son Jay —> Emery & Jay gain majority control —> Emery increases Jay's salary but not Arnold's —> Arnold resigned from employment but not director position —> company had historically retained earnings, but then company starting paying out tiny earnings and increasing salaries —> trial judge found D's acted in bad faith and req'd to pay dividend —> D's appealed > What happens if dividends are issued in a way that makes someone unhappy? > Dxn to distribute money must be made in GF & reflect legit business purposes... > Declaration of dividends w/in BJR, except for Bad faith, fraud, or abuse of discretion > Courts also will not referee every business decision or squabble between owners > How do we identify fraud? Being generous to employees while hostility brews with Arnold?Oppression / squeeze-out / freeze-out > Bad faith = motivating cause > Here, Court just believed D's about company's need to retain money for future projects / needs. What if testimony is not believable? > Ultimately, P failed to meet burden of proof that D's didn't act in good faith —> trial court reversed, remanded with instruction to dismiss

*In Re Personal Restraint of Arnold* (pg. 90)

> Eddie Arnold was convicted of 2nd degree rape in 1979 and pled guilty for failing to register as a sex offender in 2015. > Issue: statute punishing crime was repealed, therefore no requirement to register as a sex offender (no need to plead guilty) > stare decisis: "to stand by the things decided" (i.e. precedent) > The court did not agree with the courts in the previous two hearings, however, it did not want to challenge their rulings and create conflict > Other courts in Washington say that Arnold is correct and no registration is required, but asked the Supreme Court to change the rules > Does parting company with precedent create harm here for the people of WA? > Hldg: WA State Appellate Court vacates conviction (Arnold wins) > Common law is sometimes upheld even if the court does not agree with it > Illustrates the underpinnings of *stare decisis* in a setting where there are ground to reconsider existing precedent

*SEC v. Ginsburg* (pg. 73)

> Ginsburg (CEO of Evergreen Media) would tell brother and father about insider info about certain companies and bought stock based on what they've heard > Jury = "shady, but not guilty of insider tradng" > Judge = "you're guilty" as JNOV (judgement notwithstanding the verdict) > Appeal judge = "jury reached rational, thoughtful, defensible decision and therefore cannot be disturbed" > involves review of a legal question ------------------------------ > Ginsburg called his brother Mark, possibly about his meeting with EZ Corporation's CEO and an acquisition of EZ. Mark and Ginsburg's father bought shares of EZ the following day - soon profiting substantially by selling the EZ stock. The district judge concluded that the evidence was insufficient to permit a reasonable jury to find that he had tipped off his brother or father about inside information. The SEC appealed. -- Appeals Court: The SEC did not have the burden of putting in evidence that compelled the inference Ginsburg conveyed nonpublic information to Mark. All it was required to do was put in evidence that reasonably permitted that inference. It did that. The call/trade pattern occurrences coupled with the jury's right to disbelieve the innocent explanations of the calls and trades are enough to support the verdict. Reversed.

*Aetna*

> Health care provider under investigation after company's medical director said he had never personally reviewed a patient's medical records when making decisions about what health care the health care insurer would cover > Economic incentive to protect themselves > People will eventually give up; don't want to deal with insurance company anymore

*Ashcroft v. IQBAL* (pg. 52)

> Iqbal (prisoner) arrested legally but was held in ADMAX SHU as a person of "high Interest" following 9/11, alleged he was mistreated (unconstitutionally) in prison by Attorney General Ashcroft and Chief FBI Mueller > This claim contends that officials imprisoned potential "terrorist" based on race, religion, and national origin. The claim also contends that this process was organized to keep the potential "terrorist in highly confined conditions until the FBI could clear the detainees. The claim finally contends that Ashcroft and other officials knew and condoned harsh treatment of inmates as a matter of policy. IQBAL was part of this process as a potential terrorist after the 9/11 attacks solely on account of his race, religion and origin. This Pleading names Ashcroft as the principal architect of the policy and Mueller (Director of FBI) as "instrumental in its adoption promulgation, and implementation". This policy if backed by evidence is in contravention of the First and Fifth Amendments of the Constitution > The District court denied their motion. - Accepting all the allegations of plaintiff as true. "It cannot be said that there is no set of facts on which respondent (IQBAL) would be entitled to relief against" petitioners (Ashcroft and Co.) > Petitioners (Ashcroft & Co.) filed an Interlocutory Appeal (Appeal of an issue before final judgement in case) > The Appeals court instructed the district court Motion of Dismiss from petitioners (Ashcroft & Co.) because the respondents (IQBAL) complaint fails to plead sufficient facts to state a claim for purposeful and unlawful discrimination against the petitioners > The Appeals court found that his claims were conceivable but not plausible because the petitioners (Ashcroft & Co.) did not adopt the policy to unconstitutionally discriminate, rather law enforcement sought to keep suspected terrorist in secure conditions. IQBAL would need more factual content to nudge his claim of purposeful discrimination. > "conceivable but not plausible" -------------------------------- > Iqbal was detained by federal officials during 9/11 he claims he was deprived of various constitutional protections while in federal custody. The petitioners raised the defense of qualified immunity an moved to dismiss the suit, contending the complaint was not sufficient to state a claim against them - district court denied motion to dismiss. Appeal courts responded with: we hold that the respondent's complaint fails to plead sufficient facts to state a claim for purposeful and unlawful discrimination against petitioners.

*Corwin v KKR* (pg. 660)

> KKR acquired Financial Holdings' stock @ 2 shares of KKR stock ⩭ 1 share of Financial Holdings stock. > FH's business was financing KKR's leveraged buyout activities. FH was managed by "KKR financial advisors", an affiliate of KKR, that could only be terminated by FH paying a termination fee. —> Plaintiff alleges that KKR is controlling stockholder of FH. Is this a legit deal? Is it possible to control a company without a majority of its stock? > KKR owns less than 1% of FH stock, deal approved by majority of disinterested shareholders, KKR had no right to veto deals or any rights to appoint directors. —> BJR applies —> transaction is OK!

*City of Los Angeles v. Patel* (pg. 155)

> LA municipal code requirement that "every hotel keep a record" and have it be available for LAPD to inspect upon demand > Is this a violation of the 4th amendment? Illegal search and seizure? > Hotels are not a closely regulated business > exceptions for "closely regulated businesses" (ex. liquor, guns, mining, auto junkyards, daycares, etc.) because there are susceptible to injury or harm, crime, etc. > for the sake of public safety; public rights are diminished, however, hotels are not in this category → was declared unconstitutional

*General Electric*

> Lost 40% of stock's value in 2017 > The SEC is investigating the company and its accounting after $6 billion dollars in insurance loss > Many of their chief officers, as well as their board of directors, are either stepping down or being let go of → plants a seed of doubt about the future of the company > Is fraud involved regarding this Forbes 500 company?

*TOMS shoes*

> Marketed as a good, giving shoes to people in third world countries > By donating shoes to different regions, they're taking away from jobs from shoe makers in those areas

*Hively v. Ivy Tech Community College of Indiana* (pg. 99)

> Ms. Hively is a P/T adjunct teacher at Ivy Tech. She applied for 6 jobs over 14 years, never got a job, and eventually her k was cancelled > She sued (after EOC filing failed) for Title VII discrimination, specifically based on sexual orientation > District Court dismissed because S.O. is not covered by Title VII of CRA of 64; 7th circuit agreed > 7th circuit then reviewed its own decision and determined based on sexual orientation is covered by Title VII as a matter of *statutory interpretation*

*Magee v. Bea Construction Corp. 2015* (pg. 69)

> NJ P's wanted to build home in Puerto Rico, hired BEA for $80K > No work gets done, BEA breaches 2 contracts, Magees file lawsuit and win > BEA files for an appeal, but judge couldn't help because BEA didn't take the necessary steps before trial > Federal SMJ (subject matter jurisdiction) via diversity of citizenship > "courts are most frequently moved to help those that help themselves" > illustrates what happens when a party attempts to appeal without having filed a JMOL or a motion for a new trial

*US v O'Hagan* (pg. 681)

> O'Hagan worked for a law firm. Grand Metro PLC hired the firm to create a tender offer for Pillsbury stock. O'hagan started buying stock and options. The law firm withdrew representation but Pillsbury continued anyway, and after public announcement of tender offer, O'Hagan made $4.3 million. O'Hagan accused of violating 10B of Act of 1934, and 10(b)5 of SEC rules. > Core question at issue: Can 10b5 liability be grounded in "misappropriation theory of fraud"? > Hldg: If confidential information is misappropriated in breach of a fiduciary obligation to the source of the information, 10B and 10b5 are violated! > RA: We don't want fiduciaries - turned - trader. Can't feign fidelity to the source of information! > Breach of duty not owed to trading partner, but source of information. And deception of non-disclosure is just as serious as disclosure...damage isn't necessarily any less.

*Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court* (pg. 37)

> Over 600 plaintiffs brought suit against Bristol Myers Squibb in California > It's a Delaware company with HQ in New York > $900 million in CA sales (1% of company revenue) > California says Specific Person Jurisdiction exists > BMS moved to dismiss the lawsuit for lack of general PJ, although California courts did not have general PJ they argued that they had Specific PJ- BMS appealed > General jurisdiction comes from place or residence or corporate "home" → suit for anything (NY, CA, and DE) > Specific jurisdiction suit must arise from contacts with forum state (state where lawsuit takes place) → suit for this issue only > At Issue: California "Sliding Scale Approach" to specific jurisdiction... includes contacts unrelated to claims > Supreme Court reverses decisions of California SC

*Trump v. Cheng* (pg. 633)

> PT was a shareholder in property development group and didn't agree with sale price of Hudson River property —> lawsuit —> is it a derivative suit where he had to give notice to other SH's 1st? > DE law applied in NY CourtIssue: are damages due to SH or company? —> Company ∴ Derivative suit

*Snapchat*

> People are unsatisfied with Snapchat's new update (too similar to Instagram) > They keep losing money > Kylie Jenner's tweet expressed the same sentiment many people feel → tip of the iceberg (conformity bias) > Losing $1 billion is the first step on a slippery sloped to making unethical choices

*Hostess (June 2016)*

> Recalled due to undeclared peanut residue > Bigger problem b/c life threatening, if someone can die it is unethical > Lack of transparency, self awareness *in both Starbucks and Hostess cases, the maximum economic loss was only $5 which is impractical

*Roku and NRA*

> Roku refuses to drop NRA TV > A lot of companies make their decisions regarding their relationship with the NRA based on what their competitors would do > In situations like this, this is not how it should be

*McLaughlin v Schenk* (pg. 627)

> Schenk is President of Cookietree ('81) & McLaughlin joined in '92, eventually to become COO; Schenk wanted to sell company —> Schenk opened discussions with Otis Spunkmeyer cookies —> McL wouldn't go along with terms of deal with Otis Spunkmeyer so Schenk fired him—> McL sued for breach of fiduciary duty > Duty of good faith b/w SH's, prudent care, and w/best interest of corporation at heart, but is this owed collectively (corporate standard)? or to individuals (partnership standard)? > Closely held corporation more like partnership, so duty IS owed to individuals. Now, do we have a breach per PF case? Not here...

*Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Assn. v. State Farm Mutual Auto Insurance Co.* (pg. 159)

> Secretary of Transportation and National Highway Traffic Safety Administration issued Standard 208 in 1967 > Required installation of seatbelts or airbags in all new automobiles > Two months after reopening the rulemaking, the NHTSA ordered a one-year delay in the first application of the standard and proposed the possible rescission of the entire standard > The NHTSA issued a final rule rescinding Modified Standard 208's passive restraint requirement. In rescinding this requirement, the NHTSA stated that it could no longer find—as it had prior to the initial proposal of the rule—that such a requirement would produce significant safety benefits > State Farm Mutual and other insurance companies sued for review of the rescission order > The rescission was *arbitrary and capricious* (NHTSA): an action not based upon consideration of relevant factors (all cars to have airbags) > Reasons why: --> NHTSA gave no consideration to modifying the Standard to require that the airbag ---> Technology be utilized --> They were too quick to dismiss the safety benefits of automatic seatbelts --> They failed to articulate a basis for not requiring non detachable belts under the Standard --> Failed to offer rational connection between facts and judgement

*F. HOFFMAN-LA ROUCHE, LTD. v. EMPAGRAN, S.A* (pg. 806)

> Sherman Act class action lawsuit case involving vitamins

*Smith v. Gross* (pg. 668)

> Smiths wanted worms, Gross sold worm farms with promise that worms doubled in quantity every 60 days, and bait-sized worms would be repurchased at $2.25 / lb. > Smiths sued because worms didn't multiply at rate of 64x per year (as promised by Gross) and market price of worms was much lower > Is this a fraudulent security sale? Fed District Court said no securities involved —> appealed to 9th Circuit > Key issue: is there an investment K? Defined as: (1) investment of $; (2) in a common enterprise; & (3) with profits to come solely from efforts of others > Here, Appeals Court found that investment K exists, so securities laws (i.e. fraud) may be violated

*Starbucks (May 2016)*

> Sued for too much ice in drinks > False advertising > Transparent (very small problem) *in both Starbucks and Hostess cases, the maximum economic loss was only $5 which is impractical

*Air Products & Chemicals v Airgas* (pg. 657)

> Takeover attempted by AP&C, Airgas board denies attempts, despite ever-increasing tender offers. > Ultimately, $70/share offered while BofD of Airgas wants $78 / share. A BOARD CAN NOT "JUST SAY NO" to a tender offer!!!!! ONLY, a board (1) acting in good faith & (2) relying upon outside third party advice may block the tender offer like this. > BIG Q: WHO HAS THE ULTIMATE RIGHT TO DECIDE TO to accept a tender offer: THE Board or SH's? > Hldg: The power to defeat a hostile takeover attempt ultimately lies with the BofD. Here BofD identified a legally cognizable threat (i.e. insufficient $$ per share), and engaged defensive measures proportional to that threat through a poison pill. > Unocal case —> BofD's responsibility once they vote to sell is to become the auctioneer. Looking for a "white knight" [3rd party with sufficient bid] or "leveraged buyout" from a managerial group of some kind. —> Board's duty to maximize price received by shareholders.

*Soldano v. O'Daniels*

> The good samaritan laws that we know today take shape because of this case > Villanueva pulls gun on Soldano at saloon > A bystander asks to use the phone to call police at a bar across the street from incident, bartender (O'Daniels) refuses > Trial judge dismissed case and plaintiff appealed > Issue: Does establishment incur liability for death if it denies use of telephone to a Good Samaritan in an emergency? > Decision: Yes - appeal was confirmed. It was bartender's duty to allow use of the phone to the Good Samaritan during normal business hours, and he must not interfere (however, there is no rule requiring that he take action himself) > Bar fight: action vs inaction > Foreseeability ----------------------------------------------- Statement of Facts > A patron of Happy Jack's Saloon went across the street to the Circle Inn to talk with the owner of the two establishments. The patron then informed the owner that a person had been threatened at the saloon and requested to either use the phone or have the owner call the police. The owner refused both requests and the patron's father was shot and killed. The patron then brought action against the Circle Inn Owner for negligence in the death of his father. *Issue* > The issue in this case is whether or not a business should be liable for wrongful death when an employee denies the use of the telephone to one of its patrons. The patron was trying to call the police in a state of emergency. *Applicable Rule of Law* > Section 327 of the restatement states "that if one knows that a third person is ready to give aid to another and negligently prevents the third person from doing so, he is subject to liability for harm caused by the absence of aid." *Analysis/Application* > There are several issues that come about in this case that make the owner of the bar liable. 1. The harm to the plaintiff's father was foreseeable and could have been prevented. The owner should have known that people get more violent when they are drinking alcohol. 2. Although there is no rule requiring a business owner to assist a patron, the bartender owed a duty to the plaintiff to call the police since the phone was in a public part of the inn. 3. The facts of the case are almost identical to Section 327 of the restatement. *Conclusion/Holding* > The appeals court reversed the original court order and permitted the case to go to trial, siding with the plaintiff.

*Johnson and Johnson Talc Powder*

> U.S. talc power trial -- ovarian cancer > The ingredient in the powder "Talc" made from magnesium, silicon, hydrogen, and oxygen, is the main cause of cancer. > Started a series of other lawsuits against J&J > Key: Punitive Damages (paid way more than what they were sued for) > Gary M. Reedy, CEO of American Cancer Society; former Head of Global Policy for J&J

*One A Day Multivitamin Gummies*

> Vitamins are supposed to be good for you, but are these good for you? > Serving size is 2 > Misleading advertising and labeling > VitaCraves (craving vitamins??) > Not regulated by FDA until someone dies > 5 year olds considered men on the bottle

*Net Neutrality*

> Washington State has passed legislation regarding regulation of internet access for its residents → all resident of Washington have equal access > In December, the FCC allowed AT&T and Time Warner to regulate the traffic on their servers regarding what their customers can access > No longer equal free access to the internet (definition of net neutrality) > similar to recreational marijuana laws within states > example of why we need case law

*La Croix*

> What's in La Croix (flavor = natural flavor) > "framing game" > FDA doesn't define the term natural > Are they obligated to tell us? > The importance of definitions of words in product descriptions > Violates moral minimum

*Tax Shelter*

> When companies move around money to pay less taxes > Law firm was paid $50,000 per opinion for opinions on tax shelters > This was illegal because they were giving fraudulent opinions (telling clients to do illegal things so the firm can make more money) > Even lawyers can be responsible for illegal & unethical acts

*Riley v. Willis (Florida 1991)* (pg. 66)

> Willis walking dog (without leash) along the side of the road, Riley hits Willis by accident > Dog ran out in road; accident wasn't entirely Riley's fault > Tort case: someone's been harmed or injured in an improper way > Contributory negligence -- injured person put themselves in harm's way > Reversible error - Request instruction accurately states applicable law - Facts of case support giving instruction - Instruction was necessary for jury to properly resolves issues in case > Riley appealed trial court ruling because the judge failed to include instruction that dog must be on a leash + included instruction that drivers should avoid obstacles > Decision: reversed and remanded for a new trial - failed to include negligence of plaintiff by not having dog on leash ------------------------- > Mainly about the instructions given to a jury by a judge. > Willis, plaintiff, filed suit against Riley, defendant, alleging that Riley 's negligence was the cause of her injuries. > Trial judge gave the jury instructions about what a plaintiff has to prove to establish a claim of negligence against the defendant and what a defendant has to prove to establish a defendant and what a defendant has to prove to establish a defense of contributory negligence. > The judge refused to include an instruction, requested by Riley's attorney - and resulted into a reversible error. > The case was reversed and remanded for a new trail

*Outback Steakhouse*

> Woman fired from restaurant chain after complaining on social media that a big takeout party (church) didn't leave a tip > The bill was a $735 take out order > Outback has a strict policy forbidding workers from posting about customers on social media. > Outback reimbursed the church for its order in apologetic fashion > Should the worker have been fired? (Class discussion)

*EEOC v. Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc* (pg. 744)

> addresses difference between disparate treatment and disparate impact cases and talks about the important issue of causation in a religious discrimination case > reasonable accommodation

*MAGO INTERNATIONAL LLC v. LHB AG* (pg. 798)

> case shows how important compliance with technicalities can be

*Shlensky v. Wrigley* (pg. 644)

> classic business judgement rule case > Summary: Plaintiff, William Shlensky, filed an action against Defendant director, Phillip Wrigley, to force the installation of lights for night baseball Facts: Defendant is the director of the Chicago National League Ball Club, which is the company that owns the Chicago Cubs. Although every other major league team had installed lights, Defendant did not install them for the Cubs because he was concerned that night baseball would be detrimental to the surrounding neighborhood. Plaintiff argued that the team was losing money, and that the other Chicago team, the White Sox, had higher attendance during the weekdays because they played at night. Therefore, reasoned Plaintiff, the Cubs would draw more people with weekday night games. Plaintiff asserts that Defendant's first concern should be with the shareholders rather than the neighborhood > Held. The court will not overturn Defendant's decision to not install lights at the ballpark. The court cited some reasons why the light installation could be detrimental, such as lowering the property value of the park itself, a lack of proof on behalf of Plaintiff that financing would be available for lights and would be certain to be offset by increasing revenues. The court cites precedent that asserts that business decisions should not be disturbed just because a defendant can make a reasonable case that the policy chosen by the company may not be the wisest policy available.

*Okoli v Baltimore* (pg. 740)

> jacuzzi fantasy situation > HWE: (1) unwelcome conduct, (2) based on plaintiff 's sex (or other protected characteristics); (3) sufficiently severe or pervasive to create an abusive work environment & (4) imputable to R > QPQ: (1) E belongs to protected group; (2) unwelcome sexual harassment; (3) based on sex; (4) harassment related to job promotion / evaluation; (5) R takes no remedial action > Sent back to Jury b/c appellate court sees potential HWE, QPQ, and retaliation

*Everts v. Sushi Brokers LLC* (pg. 747)

> pregnant waitress case

*F&M Marketing v. Christenberry Trucking* (pg. 617)

F&M sought to pierce Christenberry's corporate veil to recover damages from its primary shareholder Clayton Christenberry.

*Pepsi Harrier Jet Commercial*

Pepsi Harrier Jet Commercial • Chapter 11: Leonard v. PepsiCo o Leonard sued Pepsi because he earned enough points to get a jet, like in the commercial o Pepsi actually had to get a jet and film this commercial, so it wasn't entirely crazy for Mr. Leonard to think that Pepsi would have a jet to give him o Leonard nearly won case • Nuances of how ad was filmed/framed allowed Pepsi to win

*Systems and Software v. Barnes* (pg. 371)

o Barnes ended up working for Systems and software inc and signed a non-compete agreement for 6 months after termination. o When he voluntarily left his job and started consulting for a firm in less than a month after he was sued by SSI and was remanded to not consult or work directly with any of SSI's competitors for the agreed 6 months. He appealed.

*Richards v. Flowers Et Al.* (pg. 316)

o Helps show how the courts try to draw the lines between preliminary negotiations and offers o Wording is very important -"I expect to receive $4500 for this property" vs. "I offer to sell this property for $4500" - Offer = acceptance possible - No offer = no acceptance possible o Richards wrote to flowers expressing interest in buying his lot of land in California o Flowers responded that he would expect to receive 4,500 for the property. o However, Flowers entered into an agreement to sell the property to the suttons before it was officially sold via real-estate agent to Richards. o Court initially ruled in favor of Flowers.

*Precision Concepts Corp. v. General Employment & Triad Personnel Services* (pg. 304)

o Hiring of Ms. Tan and how General Employment will be rewarded for the reference case o Precision hired Ms.Tan but refused to pay GE&TPS for the referral o Unilateral K existed because Precision was aware of the fee o Proceeded to interview candidate and hire her - Act of hiring = accepting the terms presented by Precision o Issue: Acts ≠ words

*University of Texas v. KST Electric* (pg. 288)

o KST was using UT longhorn logo as part of their logo - UT asked them to stop in '02 and filed suit in '06 - KST won summary judgment at first o Likelihood of confusion (where UT's lawyers failed) 1.The type of mark allegedly infringed 2. Similarity between the two marks 3. Similarity of the products or services 4. Identity of retail outlets and purchasers 5. Identity of advertising media used 6. Defendant's intent 7. Any evidence of actual confusion o "Strong generic fanciful marks" are given winder protection* o UT showed that its logo was famous in a niche way - Split verdict - Dilution claim dismissed - Infringement and unfair competition claims go to trial

*Deskovick et al. v. Porizo* (pg. 309)

o The owner of a father's estate wouldn't pay the elder brother for paying medical bills he was actually capable of paying o No implied K because sick father had no idea that bills were being paid on his behalf and that his estate could become liable for reimbursing o Both parties must have mutual understanding o Kid assumed that dad could not pay the bills o Turns out he could have afforded the bills o If no implied K, what about quasi-K? o Unjust enrichment via misunderstanding o Quasi K based on common sense o Reversed & remanded

*Feist Publications Inc. v. Rural Telephone Service Co.* (pg. 262)

• A database complier may have a "compilation copyright" in any original expression manifested in its selection, arrangement, and presentation of the data, but the data themselves are not protected by copyright • Rural Telephone Service published white/yellow pages in rural Kansas • Feist published telephone book too; regional not local • Feist is only a publisher so they needed to license information from phone service providers including RTS • RTS refused to license out their customers' information • Feist used the listings anyways • RTS used 4 dummy listings to detect infringement • Is a phone book copyrightable? • Trial court and appellate court found infringement • Phone book was copyrightable (until SC decision) • Originality in narrating a group of facts may arise from the simple arrangement and ordering of the facts • Supreme Court said the arrangement of the facts was ordinary, therefore no infringement because there was no creativity, the phonebook did not have copyright protection • RTS lost case to Feist Publications • Facts are not copyrightable but a compilation of facts can be copyrightable • It is OK to reuse facts from copyrighted works

*Granholm v. Heald* (pg. 122)

• Addresses the matter of discrimination against interstate commerce in a setting that is increasingly common with the growth of Internet commerce • 2 cases in 1; multiple cases can be heard at once if they have similar facts • Michigan - can order win to house if it's from in-state only • Ban out-of-state shipment • Violation of commerce clause • New York - required in-state distribution to reach customers • Customers had access to out-of-state wine but it was more expensive and harder to get • Violate of commerce clause • States violate commerce clause if they mandate "differential treatment of in-state and out-of-state economic interests that benefit the former and burden the ladder"

*Cushing v. Thomson* (pg. 345)

• An anti-nuclear protest group wanted to rent the National Guard armory in Portsmouth for the hope of using it for a dance they had hoped schedule on that date. The general mailed a contract offer to the alliance with terms. • By 6:30 the next day the general was withdrawing the offer. The signed contract reached the office on April 6, a day after the withdrawal. • Ruled that a contract had indeed been formed.

*Cole v. State of Louisiana (DPSC)* (pg. 209)

• Battery case that raises important workers' compensation issues • Cole was in a training exercise and was continued to be beaten even after the training exercise was over • Deals with intent

*Blackberry vs. Snap Inc.*

• Blackberry has accused Snapchat for infringing on 6 patents they hold; complaint has been filed by Blackberry • Included messaging platforms, ways of sending information • Patents- way for company to protect their ideas/property

*Schmuck v. United States* (pg. 183)

• Case dealing with mail fraud • Schmuck rolled back dials on used cars, and so committed mail fraud

*Integrated Cash Management Services v. Digital Transactions, Inc.* (pg. 235)

• Case that illustrates how a former employee can get into big trouble by taking confidential information with him or her, even if only stored in human memory • Old employees used intellectual property at new company that they made while working for ICM • ICM develops software that banks white label and sells to finance departments of companies o Combination of generic programs for communications, database management, report generation and customization • Two employees (Newlin + Vafa) left company to go to competitor (DT) o Brought source code with them to new company o ICM has rights to code the employees created o Employees wrote similar programs with new source code to avoid copyright infringement; sued by ICM • Solution was 6 months prohibition against Newlin and Vafa programming and permanent injunction against distribution of generic programs as they existed at the commencement of the suit o Not allowed to use "stolen" information or use as inspiration

*Necco Wafers*

• Chapter 11: Loss Aversion? Sentimental value? Or is this about something more? • An old English cookie maker is shutting down, potentially wiping out the supply of the infamous "necco wafers" o Apparently these wafers taste like trash o People are in a panic buying them because they won't be around anymore

*Snapchat + Domestic Violence*

• Chapter 5: third party ad on Snapchat asked, "would you rather hit Chris Brown or slap Rihanna?" • Domestic violence in an ad is not necessary, funny, or appropriate • Value of Snapchat relies on number of users • Lost around $1b after stocks fell due to Rihanna's public response o If a company does not make money, it should not exist

*Facebook Share and Price*

• Chapter 8 • Does not protect people's information • Cambridge data company helped develop an app to gain info from consumers to help president Trump • Illegal problems: 1. People downloaded app and think it's for themselves --> but it's everyone 2. Facebook knew and didn't do anything about it • FTC said not to do it, but FB did it anyways

*Amir Al-Dabagh v. Case Western Reserve University* (pg. 299)

• Dismissed right before graduation due to behavior problems o Showing up late and asking teacher not to mark him late o 2 harassment issues at school dance o Drunken argument with cabbie o Bad residency reports • Added an addendum to letter of rec o Notify potential employers of his behavior issues • Al-dabagh got a DUI in NC conviction • Committee won't certify for graduation and dismisses student o Sued university • Lower court said he earned the degree by completing required classes o 6th Cir US Appeals says "lack of professionalism" finding is within their discretion and court won't second guess • Student handbook and practice of medicine demands that students are also professional in demeanor o Student handbook = K o OK for academic evaluation to go beyond grades and include subjective component • Breach of behavioral K by the student o School no longer obliged to give him degree

*Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc.* (pg. 242)

• Dividing line between discovery and invention • Myriad isolated a BRCA 1,2 gene that held the cure for some disease • People sought whether cDNA or DNA were patentable material • Courts ruled the patent valid and that they are patentable material • "The Supreme Court held that naturally occurring gene sequences, and their natural derivative products, are not patent eligible. Under §101 of the Patent Act, the discovery of natural products does not warrant a patent. However, the Court also held that the creation of a new product in a lab exempts that product from being a product of nature. Therefore, gene sequences refined by synthetic processes to create molecules that do not occur naturally are patent eligible"

*Doughty v. Idaho Frozen Foods Corp.* (pg. 380)

• Doughty entered into contract where he'd get paid more for a harvest with 10% of potatoes >10 oz • Bad weather = smaller potatoes • Doughty started to sell small potatoes to local markets instead of going with contract because contract price was about $2.57 and farmers market price was $4.69 • Losing money is not the same as being substantively unconscionable • Unconscionable?? Court says NO!

*Beladora Jewelry*

• Example of good customer service • Good return policy and give some money back for the customer's trouble

*Brown v. Philadelphia College of Osteopathic Medicine* (pg. 203)

• Example of the factors courts view as important in determining whether an ultimate harm occurring after a series of events was reasonably foreseeable consequence of a negligent act by a defendant that kicked off a chain of events. • Yvette was a cop and the husband/wife got divorced because of false STD testing • Mr and Mrs. Brown were married, and Mrs. Brown received a false positive on her STD test for syphilis @ hospital. • She shares this with her husband and he admits to having an affair. • He hits her, she shoots at him, they get divorced and Mrs. brown loses her job as a police officer so Mrs. Brown sues the hospital • Issue: is the syphilis diagnosis a proximate cause? • It happened 9 years later - huge time lapse • Was the defendant's conduct substantial factor in creating the injury? • Ruling: NO the false + has no prox cause, and the hospital was not found responsible

*People v. Avila* (pg.181)

• Forgery case dealing with changing technologies that challenge the traditional rules • Avila altered driver's licenses, and was accused of 2nd degree forgery

*Garwood Packaging v. Allen & Co* (pg. 360)

• Garwood engaged Martin (Allen & Co) as broker to find investment, and Martin promised "come hell or high water" to find investment • Vague promise, but is that the entire problem? • Do we have consideration? • What about promissory estoppel? Cannot rely upon those kinds of promises • No valid contract • No unjust enrichment

*Suntrust Bank v. Houghton Mifflin Company* (pg. 275)

• Illustrates how the fair-use analysis is employed in the cast of a parody of a fictional work

*Otis Engineering Corp. v. Clark* (pg. 196)

• Illustration of a court's struggle to meld foreseeability and public policy factors to produce a proper scope of duty • Matheson was a drunk employee who went to work drunk • Employer send drunk employee home and he kills 2 people while drunk driving -- is employer/company liable? • Respondeat superior: employer is responsible for acts of their employees if they are acting within the scope of their job description • Duty to exercise some reasonable care

*Carrol v. Lee* (pg. 307)

• Implied K • Divorce situation where couple never legally married • In AZ at that time, the law said that if a person bought property with money they generated and put property in their own name, only way an unmarried person can gain ownership rights in that property is if an agreement exists that demonstrates co-ownership o Trial court ruled in favor of Judy o Found an implied K between Judy and Paul o Paul appealed and won at Appellate level because they found that binding precedent* via Cook v Cook did not apply because that cause involved a dual-income household; Paul was the sole income earner in this case • AZ SCt found that implied K did exist between Judy and Paul o Based on the facts and circumstances of their relationship • Case remanded back to trial court

*Britney Spears + Photoshop*

• Kenzo campaign for denim was photo-shopped • Copyright belongs to the photographer or company its for • Photo-shopping vs. Lanham Act o When does photo-shopping become misleading advertising o Context and product matters

*State v. Joy* (pg. 179)

• Key elements of an embezzlement charge; where monies were transferred to an account because of troubles

*Kolodziej v. Mason* (pg. 318)

• Mason was an attorney defending Serrano who was convicted of killing a family in Florida despite having checked in to the La Quinta Inn in Atlanta, Georgia. • Mason in an interview after the trial challenged anybody to prove the 28 minute window it took to get from the airport to the inn that was used to convict his client in exchange for 1 million dollars. • Kolodziej saw this during a rerun on NBC, proved it, asked for the 1 million but didn't get it. • The Courts ruled in favor of Mason.

*Seigneur v. National Fitness Institute* (pg. 375)

• NFI runs a fitness club that makes you sign an agreement withholding them from liabilities such as injury before you start working out in their club • NFI conducted a test to see the limits of seigneurs' fitness and new about a lower back injury but still asked her to work it out anyways. • Seigneur was subsequently hurt and sued on grounds of negligence. • Case was eventually affirmed. Key is the language used in exculpatory clause. • Advantage in bargaining strength also comes into play.

*Trump sues Bill Maher in 2013*

• Ponder this: If Bill Maher isn't funny, or much of a comedian, would he have been more likely to lose this lawsuit? Short answer: Yes. • Because Maher said -- in jest, as comedians are wont to do -- that he would donate $5 million to a charity if Trump could prove he wasn't the "the spawn of his mother having sex with an orangutan." • Could there have been a unilateral K?

*Newman v. Schiff* (pg. 327)

• Presents a communication of the offer problem • Timing is important • Offer only technically valid during the live broadcast • Newman heard the offer in a rebroadcast hours later • Irwin Schiff was a self-labeled tax rebel who made a career out of anti-tax protest activities • When he appeared on CBS news hour he claimed that if anybody could call to cite a piece of tax code that says we have to issue a tax return he will pay them 100,000. • Newman was a lawyer who did just that two days later but was subsequently denied the 100,00 based on timing

*Gonzalez v. Raich* (pg. 111)

• Provides a good example of how federal courts (the US Supreme Court), analyze whether Congress has acted within the scope of it constitutionally granted legislative power • Deals with preemption (federal v. state law: rational basis test) • Can commerce clause and DEA enforcement of Controlled Substances Act prevent local cultivation of weed under California Compassionate Use Act? • California Compassionate Use Act - for residents of California; marijuana is an option for medical use • Raich was arrested by DEA for marijuana possession even though it was just a few plants she had grown for personal, medical use • Raich sued federal government • Supreme court rules in favor of Attorney General Gonzalez • Aggregate Impact Test: impact of all purchases (local or not) impact interstate commerce • Rational Basis Test for case - federal government says controlled substances act is constitutional but it is possible for CCUA to be compliant with both state and federal law

*Quarture v. Allegheny County* (pg. 354)

• Quarture, plaintiff, sued PA county for damages for highway relocation, but this is plaintiff's contract with attorney • Attorney drafted a sloppy engagement letter with the client • 10% contingency fee @ trial court >> 33% contingency @ appellate court • Plaintiff wins more at appellate court but then refuses to pay 33% fee to attorney • Which contract was enforceable? (first one) • Pre-existing obligation? Original contract said case would be tried to final determination

*Draft Kings & Fan Duel*

• Season-long fantasy sports leagues tend to be viewed as games of skill where participants act like coaches of a team, making decisions over the course of a season. Daily fantasy sports games (or single game fantasy sports), are more like gambling because the outcome of any individual game is less about skill, and more about chance. • Draft King & Fan Duel had to pay $6 million each to resolve "lawsuits alleging false and deceptive advertising practices by the companies'" • If gambling is illegal in state that you are in, not entitled to winnings, no K • Player not entitled to pay

*Taylor Swift + Etsy Shop Owners*

• TS angered by Etsy creators selling products using her lyrics • Legally able to do so due to copyright • Disagree with application of law, agree with concept o Hard to see her side o Already has enough money, not necessary to sue creators

*Libhart v. Copeland* (pg. 390)

• This is the case involving Libhart who was a pastor for a baptist church. • This case details the facts surrounding the fraud Libhart and his wife committed in defrauding the church and unjust enrichment after the church was forced to close down. • The Libhart's were forced to pay damages.

*Totem Marine Tug & Barge v. Alyeska Pipeline* (pg. 399)

• Totem was contracted to move pipeline to Alaska from Houston TX. • Totem was unable to do this in a timely manner because of faults of Alyeska, which led Alyeska to cancel the contract. • When totem demanded payment of 300000, Alyeska only paid 96000 and to drop rest of charges knowing totem faced bankruptcy if it did not accept the payment. Court ruled in favor of Alyeska.

*Hamer v. Sidway* (pg. 351)

• Uncle promised nephew if he didn't do a list of things (i.e. drink alcohol, sex, gambling) then he would pay him $5000 o Nephew fulfilled it, went to uncle's estate and they said no; abstaining from these things was good for you • Who promised what to whom? Nephew promised uncle he would abstain from those activities, the uncle promised $5000 if he followed his rules o Value: intrinsic value on nephew's behavior • Do they have a valid contract? YES

*Wilkin v. 1st Source Bank* (pg. 395)

• When Olga Mestrovic died she willed her husband's artwork and their value to be dispersed to remaining family members, and she also had some real property too. • A house was sold to Wilkins' where they complained it was messy and the bank told them they could keep anything they find of value if they clean it themselves. They found artwork. • The court ruled that the artwork didn't belong to them because the terms of the new contract were fuzzy and the new facts were meant to indicate rubbish, not valuable artwork.